天下杂谈
原创或转帖，天下大事、国家大事、社会百态、个人小事，以供赏阅，以文会友。
正文
李世默：中国崛起与“元叙事”的终结(全文)
Eric X. Li
在我少年时，我被灌输了一个关于人类社会发展规律的大故事，这个故事是这样的所有的人类社会都遵循一个线性的发展规律，即从原始社会开始，经由奴隶社会、封建社会、资本主义社会、社会主义社会，最终过渡到, 猜猜这个终点？共产主义社会! 或早或晚, 所有的人类社会， 不管文化、语言、民族有何异同，都将演进到这一人类政治、社会发展的最高阶段人类社会自此大同在这人间天堂永远过着幸福的生活. 但在实现这个目标之前，我们必须投身于 正义与邪恶的斗争,即正义的社会主义与邪恶的资本主义之间的斗争,正义终将胜利.
当然，这就是从马克思主义理论提制出来的元叙事, 这一元叙事在中国影响甚广.我们从小就被反复灌输了这个宏大故事. 几乎融化到了血液之中，深信不笃。 这个元叙事到处畅销。 世界上曾经有整整三分之一的人 在它的笼罩之下生活.
就在我成年过程中，又发生了一件事.仿佛我这辈子只经历那一个还不够似的。 我又被灌输了另一个宏大叙事. 这个元叙事的完美与早前的那一个不分伯仲. 它同样宣称，人类社会 遵循着一个线性的发展规律，指向一个终极目标. 故事是这样展开的： 所有的人类社会，不论其文化有何异同，其民众是基督徒、穆斯林还是儒家信徒,都将从传统社会过渡到现代社会. 在传统社会中，最基本的社会单位是群体； 而在现代社会中，最基本的、神圣不可侵犯的社会单位是原子化的个人。 所有的个人都被认定为是理性的， 都有同一个诉求：选举权. 因为每一个个人都是理性的，一旦有了权选举， 必然会选出好政府随后过上永远幸福的生活又是一个人间天堂. 选举民主制早晚将成为 所有国家和民族唯一的政治制度，再加上一个自由放任的市场让他们发财. 但在实现这个目标之前，我们必须投身于 正义与邪恶的斗争. (笑声) 民主国家代表正义，并肩负着在全世界推动民主的使命, 有时甚至可以动用武力，来打击那些不实行选举的邪恶势力.
李世默: 现在...(笑声) (掌声)上述宏大叙事同样到处畅销.根据“自由之家”的统计，全世界采用选举民主制的国家，从1970年的45个已增至2010年的115个.近20多年来，西方的精英人士孜孜不倦地在全世界奔走，推荐选举民主这一救世良方:他们声称，实行多党制和全民选举是拯救发展中国家于水火的唯一良药，只要吃下它，就一定会实现繁荣. 否则，永无翻身之日. 但这一次，中国敬谢不敏。 被骗一次.... (笑声)
仅仅30多年间，中国就从世界上最贫困的农业国一跃而为世界第二大经济体.实现6.5亿人脱贫。 这期间全世界80%的减贫成就 是由中国完成的。 也就是说，所有老的、新的民主国家 的脱贫人口加起来，都不及中国一个零头, 而中国没有所谓的选举，也没有多党制.
所以，我禁不住问自己，我眼前画面到底哪里不对劲儿？我在一切今非昔比的故乡上海，我自己的事业蒸蒸日上. 新生企业如雨后春笋般发展起来. 中产阶级以史无前例的 速度和规模在增长但根据那个宏大叙事，这一切景象本都不可能出现. 面对这一切，我开始做我唯一可以做的事，即研究它. 中国的确是个一党制的国家 由中国共产党长期执政，不实行西方意义上的选举. 按照当代主流的政治理论 人们据此可以生成三个判断，即这个制度一定是体制上僵化的、政治上封闭的、道德上不具合法性的但这些论断是错误的。 事实恰恰相反. 中国的一党制具有与时俱进的能力、选贤任能的体制、深植于民心的政权合法性， 这些是确保其成功的三个核心要素。
大多数政治学家断言一党制天生缺乏自我纠错能力.因此很难持久。 而事实却是. 中共已经在中国这个世界上最大的国家之一连续执政64年， 其政策调整的幅度超过近代以来任何国家。 从激进的土改到“大跃进”运动， 再到土地“准私有化”,从“文化大革命”,到邓小平的市场化改革。 邓小平的继任者江泽民更进一步 主动吸纳包括民营企业家在内的新社会阶层人士入党，而这在毛的时代是不可想象的。 事实证明，中共具有超凡的与时俱进和自我纠错能力。 过去实行的一些不再有效的制度 也不断得到纠正和更新. 比如，政治领导人的任期制. 以前，政治领导人实际上是终身任职的. 这容易导致大权独揽、 不受制约等问题. 毛泽东作为现代中国的缔造者， 在位晚年也未能避免犯下类似的严重错误随后，中共逐步实施了领导人的任期制并将任职的年龄上限确定为68到70岁。
最近很多人声称相比于经济改革，中国的政治改革严重滞后因此当前亟需在政改中取得突破.这一论断实际上是隐藏着政治偏见的话语陷阱. 这个话语陷进预设了 哪些变革才算所谓的政治改革，只有实行这些特定的变革才算是政治改革. 事实上，中国的政治改革从未停滞. 与三十年、二十年，甚至十年前相比， 中国从基层到高层，从社会各领域到国家治理方式上，都发生了翻天覆地的变化. 如果没有最根本性的政治改革 这一切变化都是不可能的. 我甚至想大胆地判断说 中共是全世界第一流的政治改革专家.
第二个西方主流的观点认为，一党制意味着政治上封闭，一小撮人把持了权力，必然导致劣政和腐败.的确，腐败是一个大问题. 不过，让我们先打开视野看一下全景. 说起来可能令人难以置信. 中共内部选贤任能竞争之激烈程度 可能超过世界上所有的政治组织. 十八大前，中共的最高领导机构——中央政治局共有25名委员. 其中只有5人 出身背景优越，也就是所谓的“太子党”. 其余20人，包括国家主席和政府总理， 都是平民出身. 再看300多人组成的十七届中央委员会， 出身显赫者的比例更低. 可以说，绝大多数中共高层领导人 都是靠自身努力和激烈竞争获得晋升的. 与其他发达国家和发展中国家 统治精英的出身相比，我们必须承认中共内部平民出身的干部享有广阔的晋升空间.
它像一个旋转的金字塔有三个组成部分:即政府职能部门、国有企业，以及政府管辖的事业单位，如大学、社区组织等.公务人员既可以在某一类部门中长期工作也可以在三类中交替任职. 政府以及相关机构从大学毕业生中招录人员 大部分新人会从最低一级的科员干起。 组织部门会根据其表现，决定是否将其提升 到更高的四个管理职位上:副科、科、副处、处。 这可不是电影《龙威小子》中的动作名称， 而是严肃的人事工作。
这一区间的职位包罗万象，既可以负责贫困农村的卫生工作也可能负责城区里的招商引资。或一个企业的管理人员. 各级干部每年都要接受组织部门的考察. 其中包括征求上级、下级和同事的反馈意见， 以及个人操守审查. 此外还有民意调查. 最终择优提职. 在整个职业生涯中，干部们 在这三大领域内轮转任职. 在基层表现优秀的佼佼者 可以晋升为副局和正局级干部. 进入高级干部行列. 这一级别的干部，有可能 领导数百万人口的城区，也有可能管理年营业收入数亿美元的国有企业. 从统计数据就可以看出选拔局级干部的竞争有多激烈， 2012年，中国科级与副科级干部约为90万人，处级与副处级干部约为60万人，而局级与副局级干部仅为4万人.
在局级干部中，最为出众的极少数人才有机会继续晋升， 238最终进入中共中央委员会。一个晋升到高层的干部，职业生涯要经过二三十年的历练. 这过程中有任人唯亲的问题吗，当然有. 但从根本上，干部是否德才兼备才是提拔的决定性因素。 事实上，中华帝国的官僚体系有着千年历史， 今天中共的组织部门创造性地继承了这一独特的历史遗产，并发展成现代化的制度以培养当代中国的政治精英. 新任国家主席习近平的履历就是非常鲜明的例证. 习的父亲确实是中共的一位前领导人，这很不寻常, 他是第一个前领导人后代当上最高领导的. 但他的仕途也历经了30年之久 习近平从村干部做起，一步一个脚印的走到今天这个岗位。在他进入中央政治局之前，他领导过的地区总人口累计已超过1.5亿创造的GDP合计超过1.5万亿美元.千万不要误解，这不是针对具体的人，仅仅是事实的陈述. 如果要论政府管理经验，小布什, 记得他吗? 这不是看不起任何人. (笑声) 在任德州州长前,和奥巴马第一次问鼎美国总统时，他们资历还比不上中国一个小县长
温斯顿·丘吉尔曾说：“民主是个坏制度，但其他制度更坏”。可惜，他没有见识过组织部. 西方人总认为 多党竞选和普选是合法性的唯一来源. 曾有人问我：“中共不经选举执政. 其合法性从何而来？” 我的回答是：“舍我其谁的执政能力.” 我们都知道历史. 1949年中共执政时， 中国战火肆虐，外敌横行，国土四分五裂，满目疮痍,中国人的人均寿命仅为41岁。但在今天，中国已跻身世界第二大经济体，一个工业大国，人民生活迅速改善。根据皮尤研究中心在中国的民意调查报告，其中一些数据反映了中国的主流民意：85%的中国民众，对国家未来方向表示满意. 民众认为过去五年生活得到改善的比例 70%对未来颇感乐观的民众比例,压倒性的82%《金融时报》全球青年民调结果刚刚公布的数据显示. 93%的中国90后年轻人 对国家的未来感到乐观。如果这不是合法性，那我就不知道到底什么才是合法性了。
相比之下，全世界大部分选举民主制国家都处于惨淡经营的境况。关于美国和欧洲的政治困境，在座的听众都了然于胸，无需我再详述。 除了极少数例外，大部分 采用选举的发展中国家迄今为止还在遭受贫困和战火的折磨。 政府通过选举上台后，其支持率在几个月内就会跌到 50%以下从此一蹶不振甚至持续走低，直到下一次选举. 民主正陷入“一次选举，长期后悔”的周期性怪圈. 的周期性怪圈. 这样下去，失去合法性的 恐怕不是中国的一党制，而是选举民主制.
当然，我不想造成一种误会认为中国成为超级大国已经指日可待了.中国当前面临巨大挑战. 巨大变迁带来的经济、社会问题数不胜数 譬如环境污染，食品安全、人口问题. 在政治领域，最大的挑战是腐败. 目前，腐败依然猖獗，危及中国的政治制度 及其道德合法性.
但是，很多分析人士误判了腐败的原因. 他们声称腐败是一党制导致的， 只有终结一党制才能根绝腐败. 更严谨一点儿的分析将证明这种观点毫无根据. 据透明国际发布的全球清廉指数排名， 在近170个国家里, 中国近年来的排名在第70到80名之间，且呈逐年上升之势. 印度是世界上人口最多的选举民主制国家， 排名第94位，且逐年下滑；排名在中国后的约100个国家中，超过一半是选举民主制国家. 如果民主是根治腐败的万灵药， 为何在这么多国家不灵呢？
元叙事就像癌症一样正在从内部吞噬民主. 我想澄清一下. 我并不是要谴责民主. 相反，我认为民主 对西方的崛起和现代世界的诞生居功至伟. 然而，很多西方精英 把某一种民主形式模式化、普世化，他们的傲慢,是西方当前各种病症的病灶所在如果西方的精英不是把大把的时间花在向外国推销民主上，而是更多关心一下自身的政治改革，恐怕民主还不至于像今天这样无望. 中国的政治模式不可能取代 选举民主, 因为中国从不将自己的政治制度包装成普世通用的模式. 也从不热衷于对外输出。但这正是关键所在. 中国模式的重要意义不在于为世界各国提供了一个可以替代选举民主的新模式而在于从实践上证明了良政的模式不是单一而是多元的，各国都能找到适合本国的政治制度。让我们为元叙事的时代画个句号吧。 共产主义和民主可能都是人类美好的追求， 但它们普世化的教条时代已经过去。 我们的下一代，不需要被灌输说 世界上只有一种政治模式所有社会都只有一种归宿。 这是错误的，不负责任的 更是乏味的。 让世界给多元模式生存的空间吧. 也许一个更精彩的时代正缓缓拉开帷幕. 我们有没有勇气拥抱它呢？
主持人: 世默, 等几分钟,我要问你几个问题.我想很多在座的西方人会同意你多民主制度功能失败的分析,但是同时他们会对一个不是被选举产生的政权, 没有任何监督和协商,去决定国家利益表示怀疑. 中国政治模式里有什么机制 可以让人民说政权所定义的国际利益是错的?
政治学者福山曾经把中国的制度称为”响应民意的威权.”这不完全精确,但相差不远. 我知道中国最大的民意 调查公司. 你知道他们最大的客户是谁吗? 中国政府. 不只是中央政府, 市级省级政府,最小的地方政府. 他们经常进行民意调查. 你们对收垃圾等市政服务满意吗? 你们对国家的大方向满意吗? 所以,中国有一个很不同的机制能够去响应人民的诉求.我要说的关键是, 我们应该从只有一种有效政治制度的思想中解放出来,只有选举,选举,选举,才能产生响应民意的政府. 其实,我不觉得当今世界的选举 能够产生响应民意的政府. (鼓掌)
主持人: 很多人认为,民主制度的一个功能是让公民社会能够表达自己.你举出数据论证中国政府拥有民众的支持. 但你也讲到其他因素 譬如, 巨大的挑战, 当然,还有其他数据显示另外一个方向:上万的抗议和群体事件环保问题等等. 你是否建议中国模式 不允许在中共以外有公民社会的空间?
李世默: 中国有着相当活跃的公民社会,环保组织等等.但他们不一样,你可能认不出来. 在西方政治学定义里, 公民社会 必须存在与政治体制之外甚至对立于政治体制,但这个思路与中国文化格格不入. 数千年来在中国,所谓的公民社会都有存在 但它们与政治体制相辅相成, 我认为这是一个很大的文化差异. 主持人: 感谢你与TED分享这些思想. 李世默: 谢谢你.
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.
评论
目前还没有任何评论
登录后才可评论.
