個人資料
正文

自由民主自殺進行時

(2022-10-22 10:24:54) 下一個
Is Liberal Democracy Dying?
 

自由民主正在消亡嗎?

SPENCER BOKAT-LINDELL  

上周末,意大利選民將政權交給一個貝尼托·墨索裏尼法西斯獨裁政權嫡係政黨領導的聯盟,這是“二戰”後歐洲極右勢力最大的勝利之一。“今天對意大利來說是悲傷的一天,”意大利中左翼民主黨領導人說道,在競選期間,他視這場權力爭奪為拯救國家民主的鬥爭

這種說辭對美國人來說耳熟能詳,因為包括美國在內,全世界都出現了專家們所稱的全球民主倒退浪潮。根據瑞典監測機構V-Dem——碰巧在瑞典,一個根植於新納粹主義的極右翼政黨也在兩周前的選舉中表現強勢——在2021年,越來越多的民主國家正在退化,甚至滑向專製,程度比以往50年來更加嚴重。
如何解釋專製政治的全球複興,這又預示了民主怎樣的未來?以下是關於此問題的一些觀點。
 
自由民主正在後退
 
在過去幾個世紀,民主的傳播很少呈線性,而是隨著專製勢力的鬥爭起起落落。一些政治學家將民主製度的發展分為三階段:第一波始於19世紀;第二波在“二戰”後開始;第三波則始於上世紀70年代中期,在2012年到達頂峰時,全球共有創紀錄的42個自由民主政體。根據V-Dem的數據,如今隻有34個自由民主政體,與1995年時相等。(生活在自由民主國家的全球人口比例在過去十年也有所下降,從18%降至13%。)
正如時報的阿曼達·陶布解釋的那樣,近年的民主衰落——一些學者認為這構成“第三波專製化浪潮”,第一波始於上世紀20年代,第二波在上世紀60年代——主要並不是由政變或革命推動,而是通過合法當選官員的行為:“一旦掌權,不擇手段的領導人有時會為自身利益操縱政治環境,使他們更可能在未來的競爭中獲勝。通過贏得這些選舉,他們獲得了民主合法性的蓋章認定——哪怕他們的行為最終破壞了民主規範。”
在歐洲,這種通過選舉實現的“軟獨裁”最著名的踐行者就是匈牙利總理歐爾班·維克托。在2010年被選上台以後,他通過侵蝕公民自由媒體自由打壓司法重塑國家選舉製度,建立了他所謂的“非自由民主體製”。在此過程中,他成了包括美國在內全世界極右翼分子的榜樣。
 
雖然程度不同,幾乎所有地方都可以看到自由民主規範和製度的衰落。
 
·在印度,2014年當選的總理莫迪推動了印度民族主義的急劇抬頭——令國內穆斯林少數民族遭受暴力,且往往致命——並製造了極為壓抑的言論環境
 
·在菲律賓,選民最近選出一位前獨裁者之子來接替羅德裏戈·杜特地,後者擔任總統的六年裏打擊了新聞媒體,並發動了一場導致成千上萬人被殺禁毒戰爭
 
·在薩爾瓦多,2019年當選的總統納伊布·布克萊在國會部署軍隊向議員施壓,無視最高法院要限製他軍權的做法,在因幫派暴力而啟動的緊急狀態下,幾乎沒有正當程序就監禁了數以千計民眾。
 
當然還有美國:政治學家警告稱,共和黨對自由民主規範的承諾已經減弱,如今其理念已經類似於歐爾班的威權主義政黨,這種趨勢在特朗普之前就已出現,但在他擔任總統期間加速了。
 
不過,與其他許多倒退的民主國家的執政黨不同,共和黨在沒有得到多數民眾支持的情況下照樣贏得了對政府的控製。正如時報的戴維·萊昂哈特最近所寫,由於選區劃分趨勢和國會及選舉人團製度偏向於小州的綜合作用,如今美國政府的各個部門都傾向於一黨(共和黨)而非另一黨(民主黨),這種局麵在美國曆史大部分時間裏沒有出現過。
“我們無疑是世界上最反多數的民主國家,”哈佛大學政府學教授史蒂文·列維茨基對萊昂哈特表示
 
是什麽驅使民主走向專製?
 
民主製度出現倒退的原因各不相同,但政治學家和各種人都提出了一些共同的主題。其一是對大多數人的民族認同感遭受威脅做出了強烈反應,不論這種感覺真實與否。
“首先,社會兩極分化,通常是由於對社會變革、人口結構變化、種族民族或宗教少數群體政治權利加強、以及社會不信任加劇的強烈反應,”在時報廣泛報道全球民主衰退問題的麥克斯·費舍爾最近解釋道。“這導致了一種自下而上的渴望,希望秉持民粹主義的政界圈外人能夠對抗所謂的內部威脅,這意味著壓製社會上、政黨中或是種族分歧裏的另一方,主張一種賦予‘我方’特權的民主願景,並粉碎阻止我方獲得其主張的正當支配地位的民主製度或規範。”
 
階級在其中發揮了怎樣的作用?一些學者提出了民主倒退與“經濟大衰退”——或者說全球自由市場資本主義本身的衰退——相關的理論。拿印度來說,蒂巴斯·羅伊·喬杜裏上個月在時報上,“新自由主義政策加劇了不平等問題,國家在衛生和教育等問題上逃避基本責任。”他還表示:“這讓無數民眾過上了毫無尊嚴且無能為力的生活,隻能在群體身份認同中尋求庇護,被承諾保護他們不受其他群體侵害的強人領袖所吸引,並容易沉迷於宗教仇恨這樣的大規模精神鴉片,這種仇恨如今已將世俗的印度重新定義為一個印度教國家。”
 
紐約大學法學院的憲法學者理查德·皮爾茲持另一種實際利益角度的觀點,他將非自由主義勢力的崛起歸因於政治權力在越來越多的政黨之間的分散,認為這限製了民主政府有效運作的能力。“當民主政府似乎無法兌現承諾時,這種失敗可能導致許多公民的疏遠、聽天由命、不信任和回避,”他去年在《紐約時報》上寫道。“這還可能引發人們渴求威權領導人,這些人會承諾立即收拾肮髒政治。在更極端的情況下,它會導致人們質疑民主本身,並對反民主的政府製度持開放態度。”
 
民主的倒退能被製止嗎?
 
曆史表明,人類文明的軌跡並非必然傾向於自由民主。不過,它的專製傾向也是高度偶然性的。米格爾·安赫爾·拉拉·奧陶拉今年在《華盛頓郵報》上指出,自2000年以來,盡管民主倒退成為全球主要趨勢,但也有九個國家在經曆了一段威權主義時期後成功回歸民主。“這些國家向我們展示了民主的韌性,國家能夠而且確實會回歸民主,”他寫道
奧陶拉所在的國際民主與選舉援助協會提出了許多阻止和扭轉民主倒退的想法,包括投資公民教育、改革競選財務法,以及加強聯合國、歐盟和非洲聯盟等國際組織在維和行動方麵的協調。還有一些專家則主張廢除兩黨製,加強對科技巨頭的監管,並對倒行逆施的政府施加經濟懲罰
 
然而,也有人認為,技術官僚式的解決方案於事無補,無法解決問題。在2016年的一篇文章中,印度作家潘卡傑·米什拉認為,世界各地民主健康狀況的惡化,是現代基於市場的自由主義意識形態自身的危機:一種對“技術、GDP以及19世紀赤裸裸的自我利益算計”的信仰,它既不能解釋、也不能回答那些覺得自己被全球化資本主義造成的破壞和不平等甩在後麵的人的憤怒
 
米什拉認為,為了開辟前進的道路,那些相信自由民主理想的人“首先需要一幅比經濟人這個普遍形象更豐富、更多樣化的人類經驗和需求的圖景”,他說。“否則,在我們對理性動機和結果的無謂迷戀中,我們可能會像那些無助的航海家一樣——正如德·托克維爾所寫,‘固執地盯著我們離開的海岸上依稀可見的廢墟,即使水流正在前後拉扯中將我們帶向深淵。’”
Is Liberal Democracy Dying?
 
Voters around the world are electing leaders with authoritarian tendencies.
 
Spencer Bokat-Lindell By Spencer Bokat-Lindell; Mr. Bokat-Lindell is a staff editor.
 

This article is part of the Debatable newsletter. You can sign up here to receive it on Wednesdays.

Last weekend, voters in Italy handed the reins of government to a coalition led by a party directly descended from Benito Mussolini’s fascist dictatorship, delivering one of the biggest victories to the far right in Europe since World War II. “Today is a sad day for Italy,” said the leader of Italy’s center-left Democratic Party, who during the campaign had cast the contest as nothing less than a fight to save the country’s democracy.

If such language sounds familiar to American ears, it’s because countries around the world, including the United States, are confronting what experts say is a worldwide wave of democratic backsliding. According to data from V-Dem, a monitoring institute based in Sweden — where, as it happens, a far-right party with roots in neo-Nazism made a strong electoral showing two weeks ago — more democracies were deteriorating, and even slipping into autocracy, in 2021 than at any point in the past 50 years.

What explains the global resurgence of authoritarian politics, and what does it portend for the future of democracy? Here’s what people are saying.

Democracy’s spread over the past few centuries has rarely been linear, instead ebbing and flowing with the competing forces of autocracy. Some political scientists divide democracy’s progression into three waves: the first beginning in the 19th century; the second beginning in the aftermath of World War II; and the third beginning in the mid-1970s, which crested with 42 liberal democracies, a record high, in 2012. Today, only 34 liberal democracies exist, down to the same number as in 1995, according to V-Dem. (The share of the world population living in liberal democracies also fell in the last decade, to 13 percent from 18 percent.)

In Europe, the most prominent practitioner of this kind of “soft autocracy” by election is Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary. After being voted into power in 2010, he has worked to build what he calls an “illiberal democracy” by eroding civil liberties and media freedomsubjugating the judiciary, and restructuring his country’s electoral system. In the process, he has become a model to the far right around the world, including in the United States.

To varying degrees, the decline of liberal democratic norms and institutions is visible in almost every region:

And then, of course, there is the United States: Political scientists have warned that, in a trend that predated Donald Trump but accelerated under his presidency, the Republican Party’s commitment to liberal democratic norms has diminished, its messaging now resembling that of authoritarian parties like Orban’s.

Unlike ruling parties in many other backsliding democracies, though, the Republican Party has been able to win control of government without commanding popular majorities. As The Times’s David Leonhardt wrote recently, because of a confluence of geographic sorting trends and the small-state bias of Congress and the Electoral College, every branch of American government now favors one party (Republican) over another (Democratic) in a way they did not for much of the country’s history.

“We are far and away the most countermajoritarian democracy in the world,” Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard, told Leonhardt.

No two democracies backslide for identical reasons, but political scientists and others have posited some common themes. One is backlash to threats, real or perceived, to the majority’s sense of national identity.

“First, society polarizes, often over a backlash to social change, to demographic change, to strengthening political power by racial, ethnic or religious minorities, and generally amid rising social distrust,” The Times’s Max Fisher, who has reported widely on global democratic decline, recently explained. “This leads to a bottom-up desire for populist outsiders who will promise to confront the supposed threat within, which means suppressing the other side of that social or partisan or racial divide, asserting a vision of democracy that grants special status for ‘my’ side, and smashing the democratic institutions or norms that prevent that side from asserting what is perceived to be its rightful dominance.”

How does class come into the picture? Some scholars have theorized a link between democratic backsliding and the Great Recession, if not global free-market capitalism itself. In India, for example, Debasish Roy Chowdhury argued last month in The Times that “neoliberal policies have compounded inequality, with the state retreating from fundamental responsibilities such as health and education.” He continued: “This breeds a life of indignity and powerlessness for millions who take refuge in group identity, gravitate toward strong leaders promising to defend them against other groups and easily become hooked on the mass opioid of religious hatred now being used to redefine secular India as a Hindu state.”

Taking another materialist view, Richard Pildes, a constitutional law scholar at New York University School of Law, attributes the rise of illiberal forces to the dispersal of political power among a growing number of political parties, which he argues limits the ability of democratic governments to function effectively. “When democratic governments seem incapable of delivering on their promises, this failure can lead to alienation, resignation, distrust and withdrawal among many citizens,” he wrote in The Times last year. “It can also trigger demands for authoritarian leaders who promise to cut through messy politics. At an even greater extreme, it can lead people to question democracy itself and become open to anti-democratic systems of government.”

History has shown that the arc of human civilization does not inevitably bend toward liberal democracy. But its tendency toward autocracy is also highly contingent. In The Washington Post, Miguel Angel Lara Otaola noted this year that since 2000, even as democratic backsliding became the predominant global trend, nine countries managed to transition back to democracy after a period of authoritarianism. “These countries show us that democracy is resilient and that countries can and do return to democracy,” he wrote.

The organization Otaola works for, the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, has proposed numerous ideas for halting and reversing democratic backsliding, including investing in civic education, reforming campaign finance laws, and strengthening coordination between international organizations with peacekeeping initiatives like the United Nations, the European Union and the African Union. Other experts have argued for abolishing two-party systems, more heavily regulating tech giants and imposing financial penalties on backsliding governments.

Yet there are also those who believe technocratic fixes are unequal to the problem. In a 2016 essay, the Indian writer Pankaj Mishra presented the declining health of democracy around the world as a crisis for the ideology of modern market-based liberalism itself: A “religion of technology and G.D.P. and the crude 19th-century calculus of self-interest,” it can neither account for nor provide an answer to the anger of those who feel left behind by the disruptions and inequalities wrought by globalized capitalism.

To chart a path forward, those who believe in the ideals of liberal democracy will “require, above all, a richer and more varied picture of human experience and needs than the prevailing image of Homo economicus,” Mishra argued. “Otherwise, in our sterile infatuation with rational motivations and outcomes, we risk resembling those helpless navigators who, De Tocqueville wrote, ‘stare obstinately at some ruins that can still be seen on the shore we have left, even as the current pulls us along and drags us backward toward the abyss.’”

Do you have a point of view we missed? Email us at debatable@nytimes.com. Please note your name, age and location in your response, which may be included in the next newsletter.


“Is There Something Wrong With Democracy?” [The New York Times]

“Can't We Come Up with Something Better Than Liberal Democracy?” [The New Yorker]

“What Does the ‘Post-Liberal Right’ Actually Want?” [The New York Times]

“The Republican Party Is Succeeding Because We Are Not a True Democracy” [The New York Times]

“Giorgia Meloni Is Extreme, but She’s No Tyrant” [The New York Times]

[ 打印 ]
閱讀 ()評論 (0)
評論
目前還沒有任何評論
登錄後才可評論.