天下雜談
原創或轉帖，天下大事、國家大事、社會百態、個人小事，以供賞閱，以文會友。
正文
李世默：中國崛起與“元敘事”的終結(全文)
Eric X. Li
在我少年時，我被灌輸了一個關於人類社會發展規律的大故事，這個故事是這樣的所有的人類社會都遵循一個線性的發展規律，即從原始社會開始，經由奴隸社會、封建社會、資本主義社會、社會主義社會，最終過渡到, 猜猜這個終點？共產主義社會! 或早或晚, 所有的人類社會， 不管文化、語言、民族有何異同，都將演進到這一人類政治、社會發展的最高階段人類社會自此大同在這人間天堂永遠過著幸福的生活. 但在實現這個目標之前，我們必須投身於 正義與邪惡的鬥爭,即正義的社會主義與邪惡的資本主義之間的鬥爭,正義終將勝利.
當然，這就是從馬克思主義理論提製出來的元敘事, 這一元敘事在中國影響甚廣.我們從小就被反複灌輸了這個宏大故事. 幾乎融化到了血液之中，深信不篤。 這個元敘事到處暢銷。 世界上曾經有整整三分之一的人 在它的籠罩之下生活.
就在我成年過程中，又發生了一件事.仿佛我這輩子隻經曆那一個還不夠似的。 我又被灌輸了另一個宏大敘事. 這個元敘事的完美與早前的那一個不分伯仲. 它同樣宣稱，人類社會 遵循著一個線性的發展規律，指向一個終極目標. 故事是這樣展開的： 所有的人類社會，不論其文化有何異同，其民眾是基督徒、穆斯林還是儒家信徒,都將從傳統社會過渡到現代社會. 在傳統社會中，最基本的社會單位是群體； 而在現代社會中，最基本的、神聖不可侵犯的社會單位是原子化的個人。 所有的個人都被認定為是理性的， 都有同一個訴求：選舉權. 因為每一個個人都是理性的，一旦有了權選舉， 必然會選出好政府隨後過上永遠幸福的生活又是一個人間天堂. 選舉民主製早晚將成為 所有國家和民族唯一的政治製度，再加上一個自由放任的市場讓他們發財. 但在實現這個目標之前，我們必須投身於 正義與邪惡的鬥爭. (笑聲) 民主國家代表正義，並肩負著在全世界推動民主的使命, 有時甚至可以動用武力，來打擊那些不實行選舉的邪惡勢力.
李世默: 現在...(笑聲) (掌聲)上述宏大敘事同樣到處暢銷.根據“自由之家”的統計，全世界采用選舉民主製的國家，從1970年的45個已增至2010年的115個.近20多年來，西方的精英人士孜孜不倦地在全世界奔走，推薦選舉民主這一救世良方:他們聲稱，實行多黨製和全民選舉是拯救發展中國家於水火的唯一良藥，隻要吃下它，就一定會實現繁榮. 否則，永無翻身之日. 但這一次，中國敬謝不敏。 被騙一次.... (笑聲)
僅僅30多年間，中國就從世界上最貧困的農業國一躍而為世界第二大經濟體.實現6.5億人脫貧。 這期間全世界80%的減貧成就 是由中國完成的。 也就是說，所有老的、新的民主國家 的脫貧人口加起來，都不及中國一個零頭, 而中國沒有所謂的選舉，也沒有多黨製.
所以，我禁不住問自己，我眼前畫麵到底哪裏不對勁兒？我在一切今非昔比的故鄉上海，我自己的事業蒸蒸日上. 新生企業如雨後春筍般發展起來. 中產階級以史無前例的 速度和規模在增長但根據那個宏大敘事，這一切景象本都不可能出現. 麵對這一切，我開始做我唯一可以做的事，即研究它. 中國的確是個一黨製的國家 由中國共產黨長期執政，不實行西方意義上的選舉. 按照當代主流的政治理論 人們據此可以生成三個判斷，即這個製度一定是體製上僵化的、政治上封閉的、道德上不具合法性的但這些論斷是錯誤的。 事實恰恰相反. 中國的一黨製具有與時俱進的能力、選賢任能的體製、深植於民心的政權合法性， 這些是確保其成功的三個核心要素。
大多數政治學家斷言一黨製天生缺乏自我糾錯能力.因此很難持久。 而事實卻是. 中共已經在中國這個世界上最大的國家之一連續執政64年， 其政策調整的幅度超過近代以來任何國家。 從激進的土改到“大躍進”運動， 再到土地“準私有化”,從“文化大革命”,到鄧小平的市場化改革。 鄧小平的繼任者江澤民更進一步 主動吸納包括民營企業家在內的新社會階層人士入黨，而這在毛的時代是不可想象的。 事實證明，中共具有超凡的與時俱進和自我糾錯能力。 過去實行的一些不再有效的製度 也不斷得到糾正和更新. 比如，政治領導人的任期製. 以前，政治領導人實際上是終身任職的. 這容易導致大權獨攬、 不受製約等問題. 毛澤東作為現代中國的締造者， 在位晚年也未能避免犯下類似的嚴重錯誤隨後，中共逐步實施了領導人的任期製並將任職的年齡上限確定為68到70歲。
最近很多人聲稱相比於經濟改革，中國的政治改革嚴重滯後因此當前亟需在政改中取得突破.這一論斷實際上是隱藏著政治偏見的話語陷阱. 這個話語陷進預設了 哪些變革才算所謂的政治改革，隻有實行這些特定的變革才算是政治改革. 事實上，中國的政治改革從未停滯. 與三十年、二十年，甚至十年前相比， 中國從基層到高層，從社會各領域到國家治理方式上，都發生了翻天覆地的變化. 如果沒有最根本性的政治改革 這一切變化都是不可能的. 我甚至想大膽地判斷說 中共是全世界第一流的政治改革專家.
第二個西方主流的觀點認為，一黨製意味著政治上封閉，一小撮人把持了權力，必然導致劣政和腐敗.的確，腐敗是一個大問題. 不過，讓我們先打開視野看一下全景. 說起來可能令人難以置信. 中共內部選賢任能競爭之激烈程度 可能超過世界上所有的政治組織. 十八大前，中共的最高領導機構——中央政治局共有25名委員. 其中隻有5人 出身背景優越，也就是所謂的“太子黨”. 其餘20人，包括國家主席和政府總理， 都是平民出身. 再看300多人組成的十七屆中央委員會， 出身顯赫者的比例更低. 可以說，絕大多數中共高層領導人 都是靠自身努力和激烈競爭獲得晉升的. 與其他發達國家和發展中國家 統治精英的出身相比，我們必須承認中共內部平民出身的幹部享有廣闊的晉升空間.
它像一個旋轉的金字塔有三個組成部分:即政府職能部門、國有企業，以及政府管轄的事業單位，如大學、社區組織等.公務人員既可以在某一類部門中長期工作也可以在三類中交替任職. 政府以及相關機構從大學畢業生中招錄人員 大部分新人會從最低一級的科員幹起。 組織部門會根據其表現，決定是否將其提升 到更高的四個管理職位上:副科、科、副處、處。 這可不是電影《龍威小子》中的動作名稱， 而是嚴肅的人事工作。
這一區間的職位包羅萬象，既可以負責貧困農村的衛生工作也可能負責城區裏的招商引資。或一個企業的管理人員. 各級幹部每年都要接受組織部門的考察. 其中包括征求上級、下級和同事的反饋意見， 以及個人操守審查. 此外還有民意調查. 最終擇優提職. 在整個職業生涯中，幹部們 在這三大領域內輪轉任職. 在基層表現優秀的佼佼者 可以晉升為副局和正局級幹部. 進入高級幹部行列. 這一級別的幹部，有可能 領導數百萬人口的城區，也有可能管理年營業收入數億美元的國有企業. 從統計數據就可以看出選拔局級幹部的競爭有多激烈， 2012年，中國科級與副科級幹部約為90萬人，處級與副處級幹部約為60萬人，而局級與副局級幹部僅為4萬人.
在局級幹部中，最為出眾的極少數人才有機會繼續晉升， 238最終進入中共中央委員會。一個晉升到高層的幹部，職業生涯要經過二三十年的曆練. 這過程中有任人唯親的問題嗎，當然有. 但從根本上，幹部是否德才兼備才是提拔的決定性因素。 事實上，中華帝國的官僚體係有著千年曆史， 今天中共的組織部門創造性地繼承了這一獨特的曆史遺產，並發展成現代化的製度以培養當代中國的政治精英. 新任國家主席習近平的履曆就是非常鮮明的例證. 習的父親確實是中共的一位前領導人，這很不尋常, 他是第一個前領導人後代當上最高領導的. 但他的仕途也曆經了30年之久 習近平從村幹部做起，一步一個腳印的走到今天這個崗位。在他進入中央政治局之前，他領導過的地區總人口累計已超過1.5億創造的GDP合計超過1.5萬億美元.千萬不要誤解，這不是針對具體的人，僅僅是事實的陳述. 如果要論政府管理經驗，小布什, 記得他嗎? 這不是看不起任何人. (笑聲) 在任德州州長前,和奧巴馬第一次問鼎美國總統時，他們資曆還比不上中國一個小縣長
溫斯頓·丘吉爾曾說：“民主是個壞製度，但其他製度更壞”。可惜，他沒有見識過組織部. 西方人總認為 多黨競選和普選是合法性的唯一來源. 曾有人問我：“中共不經選舉執政. 其合法性從何而來？” 我的回答是：“舍我其誰的執政能力.” 我們都知道曆史. 1949年中共執政時， 中國戰火肆虐，外敵橫行，國土四分五裂，滿目瘡痍,中國人的人均壽命僅為41歲。但在今天，中國已躋身世界第二大經濟體，一個工業大國，人民生活迅速改善。根據皮尤研究中心在中國的民意調查報告，其中一些數據反映了中國的主流民意：85%的中國民眾，對國家未來方向表示滿意. 民眾認為過去五年生活得到改善的比例 70%對未來頗感樂觀的民眾比例,壓倒性的82%《金融時報》全球青年民調結果剛剛公布的數據顯示. 93%的中國90後年輕人 對國家的未來感到樂觀。如果這不是合法性，那我就不知道到底什麽才是合法性了。
相比之下，全世界大部分選舉民主製國家都處於慘淡經營的境況。關於美國和歐洲的政治困境，在座的聽眾都了然於胸，無需我再詳述。 除了極少數例外，大部分 采用選舉的發展中國家迄今為止還在遭受貧困和戰火的折磨。 政府通過選舉上台後，其支持率在幾個月內就會跌到 50%以下從此一蹶不振甚至持續走低，直到下一次選舉. 民主正陷入“一次選舉，長期後悔”的周期性怪圈. 的周期性怪圈. 這樣下去，失去合法性的 恐怕不是中國的一黨製，而是選舉民主製.
當然，我不想造成一種誤會認為中國成為超級大國已經指日可待了.中國當前麵臨巨大挑戰. 巨大變遷帶來的經濟、社會問題數不勝數 譬如環境汙染，食品安全、人口問題. 在政治領域，最大的挑戰是腐敗. 目前，腐敗依然猖獗，危及中國的政治製度 及其道德合法性.
但是，很多分析人士誤判了腐敗的原因. 他們聲稱腐敗是一黨製導致的， 隻有終結一黨製才能根絕腐敗. 更嚴謹一點兒的分析將證明這種觀點毫無根據. 據透明國際發布的全球清廉指數排名， 在近170個國家裏, 中國近年來的排名在第70到80名之間，且呈逐年上升之勢. 印度是世界上人口最多的選舉民主製國家， 排名第94位，且逐年下滑；排名在中國後的約100個國家中，超過一半是選舉民主製國家. 如果民主是根治腐敗的萬靈藥， 為何在這麽多國家不靈呢？
元敘事就像癌症一樣正在從內部吞噬民主. 我想澄清一下. 我並不是要譴責民主. 相反，我認為民主 對西方的崛起和現代世界的誕生居功至偉. 然而，很多西方精英 把某一種民主形式模式化、普世化，他們的傲慢,是西方當前各種病症的病灶所在如果西方的精英不是把大把的時間花在向外國推銷民主上，而是更多關心一下自身的政治改革，恐怕民主還不至於像今天這樣無望. 中國的政治模式不可能取代 選舉民主, 因為中國從不將自己的政治製度包裝成普世通用的模式. 也從不熱衷於對外輸出。但這正是關鍵所在. 中國模式的重要意義不在於為世界各國提供了一個可以替代選舉民主的新模式而在於從實踐上證明了良政的模式不是單一而是多元的，各國都能找到適合本國的政治製度。讓我們為元敘事的時代畫個句號吧。 共產主義和民主可能都是人類美好的追求， 但它們普世化的教條時代已經過去。 我們的下一代，不需要被灌輸說 世界上隻有一種政治模式所有社會都隻有一種歸宿。 這是錯誤的，不負責任的 更是乏味的。 讓世界給多元模式生存的空間吧. 也許一個更精彩的時代正緩緩拉開帷幕. 我們有沒有勇氣擁抱它呢？
主持人: 世默, 等幾分鍾,我要問你幾個問題.我想很多在座的西方人會同意你多民主製度功能失敗的分析,但是同時他們會對一個不是被選舉產生的政權, 沒有任何監督和協商,去決定國家利益表示懷疑. 中國政治模式裏有什麽機製 可以讓人民說政權所定義的國際利益是錯的?
政治學者福山曾經把中國的製度稱為”響應民意的威權.”這不完全精確,但相差不遠. 我知道中國最大的民意 調查公司. 你知道他們最大的客戶是誰嗎? 中國政府. 不隻是中央政府, 市級省級政府,最小的地方政府. 他們經常進行民意調查. 你們對收垃圾等市政服務滿意嗎? 你們對國家的大方向滿意嗎? 所以,中國有一個很不同的機製能夠去響應人民的訴求.我要說的關鍵是, 我們應該從隻有一種有效政治製度的思想中解放出來,隻有選舉,選舉,選舉,才能產生響應民意的政府. 其實,我不覺得當今世界的選舉 能夠產生響應民意的政府. (鼓掌)
主持人: 很多人認為,民主製度的一個功能是讓公民社會能夠表達自己.你舉出數據論證中國政府擁有民眾的支持. 但你也講到其他因素 譬如, 巨大的挑戰, 當然,還有其他數據顯示另外一個方向:上萬的抗議和群體事件環保問題等等. 你是否建議中國模式 不允許在中共以外有公民社會的空間?
李世默: 中國有著相當活躍的公民社會,環保組織等等.但他們不一樣,你可能認不出來. 在西方政治學定義裏, 公民社會 必須存在與政治體製之外甚至對立於政治體製,但這個思路與中國文化格格不入. 數千年來在中國,所謂的公民社會都有存在 但它們與政治體製相輔相成, 我認為這是一個很大的文化差異. 主持人: 感謝你與TED分享這些思想. 李世默: 謝謝你.
Good morning.My name is Eric Li, and I was born here.But no, I wasn't born there.This was where I was born:Shanghai, at the height of the Cultural Revolution.My grandmother tells me that she heardthe sound of gunfire along with my first cries.
When I was growing up, I was told a storythat explained all I ever needed to know about humanity.It went like this.All human societies develop in linear progression,beginning with primitive society, then slave society,feudalism, capitalism, socialism,and finally, guess where we end up?Communism!Sooner or later, all of humanity,regardless of culture, language, nationality,will arrive at this final stageof political and social development.The entire world's peoples will be unifiedin this paradise on Earthand live happily ever after.But before we get there, we're engagedin a struggle between good and evil,the good of socialism against the evil of capitalism,and the good shall triumph.
That, of course, was the meta-narrativedistilled from the theories of Karl Marx.And the Chinese bought it.We were taught that grand story day in and day out.It became part of us, and we believed in it.The story was a bestseller.About one third of the entire world's populationlived under that meta-narrative.
Then, the world changed overnight.As for me, disillusioned by the failed religion of my youth,I went to America and became a Berkeley hippie.
Now, as I was coming of age, something else happened.As if one big story wasn't enough,I was told another one.This one was just as grand.It also claims that all human societiesdevelop in a linear progression towards a singular end.This one went as follows:All societies, regardless of culture,be it Christian, Muslim, Confucian,must progress from traditional societiesin which groups are the basic unitsto modern societies in which atomized individualsare the sovereign units,and all these individuals are, by definition, rational,and they all want one thing:the vote.Because they are all rational, once given the vote,they produce good governmentand live happily ever after.Paradise on Earth, again.Sooner or later, electoral democracy will bethe only political system for all countries and all peoples,with a free market to make them all rich.But before we get there, we're engaged in a strugglebetween good and evil.(Laughter)The good belongs to those who are democraciesand are charged with a mission of spreading itaround the globe, sometimes by force,against the evil of those who do not hold elections.
This story also became a bestseller.According to Freedom House,the number of democracies went from 45 in 1970to 115 in 2010.In the last 20 years, Western elites tirelesslytrotted around the globe selling this prospectus:Multiple parties fight for political powerand everyone voting on themis the only path to salvationto the long-suffering developing world.Those who buy the prospectus are destined for success.Those who do not are doomed to fail.But this time, the Chinese didn't buy it.
The rest is history.In just 30 years, China went fromone of the poorest agricultural countries in the worldto its second-largest economy.Six hundred fifty million peoplewere lifted out of poverty.Eighty percent of the entire world's poverty alleviationduring that period happened in China.In other words, all the new and old democraciesput together amounted to a mere fractionof what a single, one-party state did without voting.
See, I grew up on this stuff: food stamps.Meat was rationed to a few hundred gramsper person per month at one point.Needless to say, I ate all my grandmother's portions.
So I asked myself, what's wrong with this picture?Here I am in my hometown,my business growing leaps and bounds.Entrepreneurs are starting companies every day.Middle class is expanding in speed and scaleunprecedented in human history.Yet, according to the grand story,none of this should be happening.So I went and did the only thing I could. I studied it.Yes, China is a one-party staterun by the Chinese Communist Party, the Party,and they don't hold elections.Three assumptions are madeby the dominant political theories of our time.Such a system is operationally rigid,politically closed, and morally illegitimate.Well, the assumptions are wrong.The opposites are true.Adaptability, meritocracy, and legitimacyare the three defining characteristicsof China's one-party system.
Now, most political scientists will tell usthat a one-party system is inherently incapableof self-correction.It won't last long because it cannot adapt.Now here are the facts.In 64 years of running the largest country in the world,the range of the Party's policies has been widerthan any other country in recent memory,from radical land collectivization to the Great Leap Forward,then privatization of farmland,then the Cultural Revolution,then Deng Xiaoping's market reform,then successor Jiang Zemin took the giant political stepof opening up Party membership to private businesspeople,something unimaginable during Mao's rule.
So the Party self-corrects in rather dramatic fashions.Institutionally, new rules get enactedto correct previous dysfunctions.For example, term limits.Political leaders used to retain their positions for life,and they used that to accumulate powerand perpetuate their rules.Mao was the father of modern China,yet his prolonged rule led to disastrous mistakes.So the Party instituted term limitswith mandatory retirement age of 68 to 70.
One thing we often hear is,"Political reforms have lagged far behind economic reforms,"and "China is in dire need of political reform."But this claim is a rhetorical traphidden behind a political bias.See, some have decided a prioriwhat kinds of changes they want to see,and only such changes can be called political reform.The truth is, political reforms have never stopped.Compared with 30 years ago, 20 years, even 10 years ago,every aspect of Chinese society,how the country is governed,from the most local level to the highest center,are unrecognizable today.Now such changes are simply not possiblewithout political reforms of the most fundamental kind.Now I would venture to suggest the Partyis the world's leading expert in political reform.
The second assumption is that in a one-party state,power gets concentrated in the hands of the few,and bad governance and corruption follow.Indeed, corruption is a big problem,but let's first look at the larger context.Now, this may be counterintuitive to you.The Party happens to be one of the most meritocraticpolitical institutions in the world today.China's highest ruling body, the Politburo, has 25 members.In the most recent one, only five of themcame from a background of privilege, so-called princelings.The other 20, including the president and the premier,came from entirely ordinary backgrounds.In the larger central committee of 300 or more,the percentage of those who were borninto power and wealth was even smaller.The vast majority of senior Chinese leadersworked and competed their way to the top.Compare that with the ruling elitesin both developed and developing countries,I think you'll find the Party being near the topin upward mobility.
The question then is, how could that be possiblein a system run by one party?Now we come to a powerful political institution,little-known to Westerners:the Party's Organization Department.The department functions like a gianthuman resource engine that would be the envyof even some of the most successful corporations.It operates a rotating pyramidmade up of three components:civil service, state-owned enterprises,and social organizations like a universityor a community program.They form separate yet integrated career pathsfor Chinese officials.They recruit college grads into entry-level positionsin all three tracks, and they start from the bottom,called "keyuan" [clerk].Then they could get promotedthrough four increasingly elite ranks:fuke [deputy section manager], ke [section manager], fuchu [deputy division manager], and chu [division manger].Now these are not moves from "Karate Kid," okay?It's serious business.The range of positions is wide,from running health care in a villageto foreign investment in a city districtto manager in a company.Once a year, the department reviews their performance.They interview their superiors, their peers,their subordinates. They vet their personal conduct.They conduct public opinion surveys.Then they promote the winners.Throughout their careers, these cadrescan move through and out of all three tracks.Over time, the good ones move beyond the four base levelsto the fuju [deputy bureau chief] and ju [bureau chief] levels.There, they enter high officialdom.By that point, a typical assignment will beto manage a district with a population in the millionsor a company with hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue.Just to show you how competitive the system is,in 2012, there were 900,000 fuke and ke levels,600,000 fuchu and chu levels,and only 40,000 fuju and ju levels.
After the ju levels,the best few move further up several more ranks,and eventually make it to the Central Committee.The process takes two to three decades.Does patronage play a role? Yes, of course.But merit remains the fundamental driver.In essence, the Organization Department runsa modernized version of China's centuries-oldmentoring system.China's new president, Xi Jinping,is the son of a former leader, which is very unusual,first of his kind to make the top job.Even for him, the career took 30 years.He started as a village manager,and by the time he entered the Politburo,he had managed areas with a total populationof 150 million peopleand combined GDPs of 1.5 trillion U.S. dollars.
Now, please don't get me wrong, okay?This is not a put-down of anyone. It's just a statement of fact.George W. Bush, remember him?This is not a put-down.(Laughter)Before becoming governor of Texas,or Barack Obama before running for president,could not make even a small county managerin China's system.Winston Churchill once said that democracyis a terrible system except for all the rest.Well, apparently he hadn't heard of the Organization Department.
Now, Westerners always assume thatmulti-party election with universal suffrageis the only source of political legitimacy.
We all know the facts.In 1949, when the Party took power,China was mired in civil wars, dismembered by foreign aggression,average life expectancy at that time, 41 years old.Today, it's the second largest economy in the world,an industrial powerhouse, and its people livein increasing prosperity.
Pew Research polls Chinese public attitudes,and here are the numbers in recent years.Satisfaction with the direction of the country: 85 percent.Those who think they're better off than five years ago:70 percent.Those who expect the future to be better:a whopping 82 percent.Financial Times polls global youth attitudes,and these numbers, brand new, just came from last week.Ninety-three percent of China's Generation Yare optimistic about their country's future.Now, if this is not legitimacy, I'm not sure what is.
In contrast, most electoral democracies around the worldare suffering from dismal performance.I don't need to elaborate for this audiencehow dysfunctional it is, from Washington to European capitals.With a few exceptions, the vast numberof developing countries that have adopted electoral regimesare still suffering from poverty and civil strife.Governments get elected, and then they fallbelow 50 percent approval in a few monthsand stay there and get worse until the next election.Democracy is becoming a perpetual cycleof elect and regret.At this rate, I'm afraid it is democracy,not China's one-party system, that is in dangerof losing legitimacy.
Now, I don't want to create the misimpressionthat China's hunky-dory, on the wayto some kind of superpowerdom.The country faces enormous challenges.The social and economic problems that comewith wrenching change like this are mind-boggling.Pollution is one. Food safety. Population issues.On the political front, the worst problem is corruption.Corruption is widespread and undermines the systemand its moral legitimacy.But most analysts misdiagnose the disease.They say that corruption is the result of the one-party system,and therefore, in order to cure it,you have to do away with the entire system.
But a more careful look would tell us otherwise.Transparency International ranks Chinabetween 70 and 80 in recent years among 170 countries,and it's been moving up.India, the largest democracy in the world,94 and dropping.For the hundred or so countries that are ranked below China,more than half of them are electoral democracies.So if election is the panacea for corruption,how come these countries can't fix it?
Now, I'm a venture capitalist. I make bets.It wouldn't be fair to end this talk withoutputting myself on the line and making some predictions.So here they are.In the next 10 years, China will surpass the U.S.and become the largest economy in the world.Income per capita will be near the topof all developing countries.Corruption will be curbed, but not eliminated,and China will move up 10 to 20 notchesto above 60 in T.I. ranking.Economic reform will accelerate, political reform will continue,and the one-party system will hold firm.
We live in the dusk of an era.Meta-narratives that make universal claimsfailed us in the 20th centuryand are failing us in the 21st.Meta-narrative is the cancerthat is killing democracy from the inside.Now, I want to clarify something.I'm not here to make an indictment of democracy.On the contrary, I think democracy contributedto the rise of the West and the creation of the modern world.It is the universal claim that many Western elitesare making about their political system, the hubris,that is at the heart of the West's current ills.If they would spend just a little less timeon trying to force their way onto others,and a little bit more on political reform at home,they might give their democracy a better chance.China's political model will never supplantelectoral democracy, because unlike the latter,it doesn't pretend to be universal.It cannot be exported. But that is the point precisely.The significance of China's exampleis not that it provides an alternative,but the demonstration that alternatives exist.Let us draw to a close this era of meta-narratives.Communism and democracy may both be laudable ideals,but the era of their dogmatic universalism is over.Let us stop telling people and our childrenthere's only one way to govern ourselvesand a singular future towards whichall societies must evolve.It is wrong. It is irresponsible.And worst of all, it is boring.Let universality make way for plurality.Perhaps a more interesting age is upon us.Are we brave enough to welcome it?
Bruno Giussani: Eric, stay with me for a couple of minutes,because I want to ask you a couple of questions.I think many here, and in general in Western countries,would agree with your statement about analysisof democratic systems becoming dysfunctional,but at the same time, many would kind of findunsettling the thought that there is an unelectedauthority that, without any form of oversight or consultation,decides what the national interest is.What is the mechanism in the Chinese modelthat allows people to say, actually,the national interest as you defined it is wrong?
EXL: You know, Frank Fukuyama, the political scientist,called the Chinese system "responsive authoritarianism."It's not exactly right, but I think it comes close.So I know the largest public opinion survey companyin China, okay?Do you know who their biggest client is?The Chinese government.Not just from the central government,the city government, the provincial government,to the most local neighborhood districts.They conduct surveys all the time.Are you happy with the garbage collection?Are you happy with the general direction of the country?So there is, in China, there is a different kind of mechanismto be responsive to the demands and the thinking of the people.My point is, I think we should get unstuckfrom the thinking that there's only one political system --election, election, election --that could make it responsive.I'm not sure, actually, elections produceresponsive government anymore in the world.
BG: Many seem to agree.One of the features of a democratic systemis a space for civil society to express itself.And you have shown figures about the supportthat the government and the authorities have in China.But then you've just mentioned other elementslike, you know, big challenges, and there are, of course,a lot of other data that go in a different direction:tens of thousands of unrests and protestsand environmental protests, etc.So you seem to suggest the Chinese modeldoesn't have a space outside of the Partyfor civil society to express itself.
EXL: There's a vibrant civil society in China,whether it's environment or what-have-you.But it's different. You wouldn't recognize it.Because, by Western definitions, a so-called civil societyhas to be separate or even in oppositionto the political system,but that concept is alien for Chinese culture.For thousands of years, you have civil society,yet they are consistent and coherentand part of a political order, and I thinkit's a big cultural difference.
評論
目前還沒有任何評論
登錄後才可評論.
