中國的政治製度比美國的民主更靈活 - 轉載

【題記】本文是萬維網友湯安推薦的一篇文章。原文載《基督教科學箴言報》。這個標題是該報的原題“China's political system is more flexible than US democracy”照譯。因為這個報紙曆來以客觀，公正，和“to injure no man, but to bless all mankind”的宗旨著稱，在美國媒體中也算是有些影響的報紙。而該文的觀點有些出奇，所以我想翻譯介紹給中文讀者。隻是譯到最後，發現作者（Eric X. Li）可能是一位中國人，使得這篇文章的意義打了折扣。我並不同意本文的所有觀點，但是以為這樣的時候，這樣的文章被介紹給民主體製下的美國人，有一些令人感興趣的東西在。各位讀者可以見仁見智，有磚盡管砸，我可能參與討論，但請恕我不能為原作者回應您。為避免誤解，特將英文原文附於每段譯文之後。拖拽鼠標可看。  

【原文提要】許多人認為，西方的民主製度是一種比一黨製優越的體製，因為政治權力的輪換賦予政府以靈活性，以達成所必需的政策變化。 但隨著時間的推移，中國的一黨製已經明顯證明其適應時代變化的巨大能力（Many people believe the Western democracy is superior to a one-party system because the rotation of political power gives government the flexibility to make needed policy changes. But China’s one-party system has proven over time to be remarkably adaptable to changing times.） 

變革無處不在。 通過革命，選舉，和其他方法，整個世界的政府都在輪換。而這中間，隻有美中這一對世上最重要的國家，是顯著的和平繼承。 在接下來的13個月，美國的兩黨製民主選舉將選出一位總統和新一屆國會，而一黨製的國家中國也將產生新的領導班子。 （Change is in the air. By revolutions, elections, and other methods, governments are changing hands across a wide swath of the world. Two of the most notable peaceful successions are occurring in none other than the most important pair of countries in the world, the United States and China. In the next 13 months, America’s two-party electoral democracy will elect a president and a new Congress, and China’s one-party state will also produce new leadership.） 

當世界各地的人類社會麵臨種種似乎無盡的棘手問題的時候，人們再次激烈辯論：什麽是“最好的”管治製度？With the myriad of seemingly intractable problems facing human societies everywhere, people are again hotly debating: What is the “best” system of governance? 

連像福山（Francis Fukuyama）這樣的思想大師都加入了論戰 。 在他的新大部頭《政治秩序的起源》及其相關著作中，福山先生指出，中國的一黨製的明顯成功，還是不能解決“壞皇帝”這個問題。就是：你如何讓皇帝在變 “壞”之後離開曆史舞台？（Intellectual giants no less than Francis Fukuyama are entering the fray. In his new tome, “The Origins of Political Order” and in related writings, Mr. Fukuyama points out that the obvious success of China’s one-party system does not solve the “bad emperor” problem: How do you make the emperor go away if and when he turns “bad”?） 

一位報紙評論員曾經指出，盡管根據民意調查的結果，中國共產黨享有廣泛的民意支持，（中共一黨體製）的致命缺陷是，當它失去人民支持的時候，沒有辦法“誘導”黨放棄權力（A newspaper commentator has gone so far as to pronounce that despite the wide popular support (as measured by opinion surveys) enjoyed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the fatal flaw in the system is that there is no way to “induce” the party to give up power if and when it loses the people’s support.） 

但是，這是一個虛假的命題。 中國有句古話：“夫君者舟也，人者水也。水可載舟，亦可覆舟。”今天，民族國家已經取代了帝國和皇帝。 在這個比喻中，水仍然是人民。 然而，舟已不再僅僅是一個皇帝和他的王朝，而是一個構成了現代民族國家的更大，也更為複雜的政治製度。（But this is a faux proposition. There is an old Chinese saying: “The people are like water, the ruler is a ship on that water. Water can carry the ship; water can overturn the ship.” Today, nation-states have replaced empires and kingdoms. In this analogy, water is still the people. The ship, however, is no longer just an emperor and his dynasty, but the larger and far more sophisticated political system that constitutes the modern nation-state.） 

中國的一黨統治，是由其憲法所規定的，正如美國的民主選舉製度是其憲法所規定的一樣。始終體現在獨立公眾輿論調查中的，中國人民壓倒性和持續性的對共產黨的領導的支持，正是體現了這個國家的一黨政治憲法的情形，因此也隻能被解釋為對這個基本政府體製的支持。（China’s one-party rule is enshrined in its constitution, just as America’s electoral democracy is in its. The Chinese people’s overwhelming and sustained support for the Communist Party’s leadership, as consistently reflected in independent public opinion surveys, is within the context of the nation’s one-party political constitution, and therefore can only be interpreted as support for this fundamental system of government.） 

美國人民對共和黨或民主黨的支持，潮漲潮落，但它並非必然表現了對美國選舉民主這個根本製度的普遍支持。 目前，（中美）這兩個國家的人民都支持各自的政治憲法。（Americans’ support for either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party ebbs and flows, but it is not necessarily linked to popular support for its fundamental system of electoral democracy. At the moment, both nations’ peoples support their respective political constitutions.） 

有人說，在假設的情況下，比如中共失去民心，它就應該下台。隻有確保了這一點，黨在目前享有的人民的支持才具有合法性。 按照這樣的說法，從邏輯上推論下去，其結論就意味著，在假設的情況下，如果美國現有的民選的統治者失去了人民的支持，那麽美國就必須停止選舉，取消“人權法案 “，並實行專製或別的什麽統治製度。（Some say that in the hypothetical situation in which the CCP lost popular support, it should step down from power, and only when this is ensured could the support of the people the party currently carries be rendered legitimate. Such an argument, if pushed to its logical conclusion, would mean that if, in a hypothetical situation, the current electoral regime in America lost the people’s support, the US must do away with elections, cancel the Bill of Rights, and install an authoritarian or some other system of governance. ） 

這當然是荒謬的。 在一個已經鞏固了的體製內，統治者可能成功地和平傳承或者輪換。但是 政治製度本身不可能迅速改變。 幾乎沒有例外，政治製度隻有通過革命才可能突變。 在美國的短暫曆史上，在其領土上就有過兩次暴烈的戰爭，才建立和鞏固了它目前的統治體製。（This, of course, is absurd. Rulers may be succeeded or rotated peacefully within established systems of governance. Political systems themselves cannot be changed on a dime. With few exceptions, political systems change quickly only through revolutions. In America’s short history, it took two violent wars on its soil to establish and consolidate its current governing system.）

許多人認為，西方的民主製度更加優越。因為通過投票的政黨輪換允許政府要求的靈活性，使政策得以改變，滿足不斷變化的時代需求，從而更好地體現人民的意誌。 相比之下，中國的一黨製是剛性的，中共的權力壟斷使它與人民相分離。（Many argue that Western democratic regimes are superior because the rotation of political parties by voting allows the flexibility required for the government to make policy changes that meet the demands of changing times and thereby better reflect the will of the people. In contrast, China’s one-party system is rigid, and the CCP’s monopoly on power disconnects it from the people.） 

做一點最簡單的思考就可以知道這樣的說法十分荒謬。 自從共產黨於1949年建立中華人民共和國以來，在共產黨一黨領導下，中國政府的政策和政治環境的變化可謂天翻地覆。 從最初的所謂“新民主主義”聯盟，到20世紀50年代初的激進的土地改革，從大躍進到20世紀60年代初的農田準私有化，從文化大革命到鄧小平的“市場改革”、和江澤民的“三個代表”理論對黨的重新定位，中國的國內政治從一個時期到另一個時期幾乎麵目全非。（The simplest exercise in intellectual diligence would show such argument to be preposterous. Since the party established the People’s Republic in 1949, under the leadership of a single political party, changes in China’s government policies and political environment have covered the widest possible spectrum. From the so-called “New Democratic” coalition at the beginning to the dramatic land reforms of the early 1950s, from the Great Leap Forward to the quasi-privatization of farmland in the early 1960s, from the Cultural Revolution to Deng Xiaopin’s market reform and Jiang Zemin’s redefinition of the Party through his “Theory of Three Represents,” China’s domestic politics are almost unrecognizable from one period to another.） 

在外交政策方麵，中國實現了從20世紀50年代與蘇聯的緊密聯盟關係，到20世紀7、80年代與美國的事實結盟以遏製蘇聯的轉變。今天，它所追求的，是在一個日益多極化的世界裏，與他國不同的、獨立的道路。 沒有人能夠否認，其領導人，從毛澤東到鄧小平，從江澤民到胡錦濤，以及明年的習近平，無論是從政治前景還是政策的優先次序上，都存在著巨大的不同。比起其它政治製度下在政壇上下出入的政治家們的不同來，也毫不遜色。（In foreign policy, China moved from a close alliance with the Soviet Union in the 1950s to a virtual alliance with the United States in the 1970s and ’80s to contain the former. Today, its pursuit of an independent course in an increasingly multi-polar world is distinctive among the nations of the world. No one could deny that its leaders, from Mao to Deng, from Jiang to Hu and to Xi next year, differ as widely in political outlooks and policy priorities as those who move in and out of power under any other political systems.） 

經過六十年來，已經出現了許多失誤和相應的糾正。 文化大革命這場災難受到廣泛的批判。 國家從它破碎的狀態，走到我們都知道的今天的中國。 事實證明了一黨製自我糾錯和變革的非凡能力。（Through six decades, there have been many blunders and corresponding course corrections. The Cultural Revolution – a disaster – was outright condemned. And the country went from its shattered state to the China we know today. The facts demonstrate the extraordinary capability of a one-party system for change and self-correction.） 

另一方麵，世界各地的選舉製度的記錄表明，通過選舉的政黨輪換可能無法提供所需的靈活性或自我糾正。 在美國，選舉可能產生新的總統和新的國會多數黨，但他們似乎在對付美國的長期挑戰上，成就寥寥。（On the other hand, the records of electoral regimes around the world indicate that party rotation through elections may not provide the needed flexibility or self-correction. In the United States, elections may have produced new presidents and congressional majorities, but they do not seem to have done much to tackle America’s long-term challenges.）

在歐洲 ，各國政府在定期的選舉中，你方唱罷我登場。但沒有選舉產生哪怕最小的一點改變，以解決他們的現實的巨大窘迫。 在一年換一任總理的日本，選舉和政黨的輪替也未能解除其國家20年的停滯。 這也許可以解釋為什麽，在這些國家，由選舉產生的政府的民眾認可率總是遠遠低於50％。而中國的一黨政府幾十年來都保持了80％以上的認可率。（In Europe, governments regularly get voted in and out, but no elections have produced even the minimal corrections required to address their monumental distress. In the one-prime-minster-per-year Japan, elections and party rotations have failed to lift the country out of its 20-year stagnation. Perhaps this could explain why governments produced by elections routinely fall substantially below 50 percent approval rating in their countries, and China’s one-party government has retained approval rates above 80 percent for decades.）

在新一季世界各地的政局變化中，在中國，在西方，在日本和阿拉伯世界，是水載舟呢，還是水覆舟呢？ 什麽樣的舟是水所真正想要承載的？ 少一點意識形態的偏見，多幾分理性的誠實，可能會告訴我們一些簡單的的真理：選舉輪換並不一定會產生靈活性和合法性；一黨統治並不意味著僵化或缺乏民眾的支持。（n this season of political change around the globe, in China, in the West, in Japan, and the Arab world, is water carrying the ship? Is water overturning the ship? What kind of ship does the water truly want to carry? A little less ideological bias and a little more intellectual honesty might tell us some simple truths: Electoral rotations do not necessarily produce flexibility or legitimacy; one-party rule does not mean rigidity or lack of popular support.） 

也許，隻是也許，如果那些相信自己的政治製度的道德優越感的人們願意從或者口沫橫飛，或者以勢壓人的道德說教中分出些精力，做一點自我反省，說不定甚至可能會有助於他們自己的國家。 到底是誰真正有“壞皇帝”的問題？（P

http://blog.creaders.net/bisrightdisleft/user_blog_diary.php?did=94993