超级军网李世默：裸体的皇帝
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/29 18:04:27
本文发表于10月17日《基督教科学箴言报》
这是一个变革的时代。望眼世界，革命、选举或者其他原因正导致无数政府面临权力交接。在这些令人眼花缭乱的变动中，美国和中国是当今世界的中坚，其政治权力的和平交接，无疑最受人关注。其中，前者通过代议制下的两党竞选，将选出下届总统和新国会，而后者在一党执政的体制下，也要产生新的领导层。当前，世界各国普遍遭遇困境和挑战，关于什么是最“好”的政治制度，再次成为争论焦点。
这场争论吸引了许多重要的知识分子参与，其中就包括政治学界的思想家弗朗西斯・福山。在最近的《政治秩序的起源》以及其他相关著作中，福山提出尽管一党执政的中国目前十分成功，但在制度上却无法解决“坏皇帝”的问题。更具体地说，就是一旦皇帝变“坏”，大家都将束手无策。另有一位评论家更是进一步推演了此担忧。他认为，虽然当前的民意调查说明中国共产党享有高度支持，但在这个制度下，即使中国共产党失去了民众的支持，却无法“促使”其放弃权力，这才是最致命的问题。
但这是个伪推论。中国古谚言道：“夫君者舟也，人者水也。水可载舟，亦可覆舟。”古代的帝国和王国，已被今天的民族国家取而代之。在此比喻里，民众依然可以被理解成“水”，而“舟”已不再是某位皇帝或他的王朝，而是构成现代民族国家的庞大而复杂的政治制度。中国的一党执政制度在宪法中有明确宣示，正如美国宪法明文规定了民主代议制。中国共产党的执政受到民众长期、普遍的支持，而独立的民意调查结果也反复印证了此点。在一党执政的政治宪法下，这即意味着对基本政治制度的支持。而在美国，民众对共和党或民主党的支持度此消彼长，但这与其对美国的基本政治制度，即民主代议制的支持程度不是一回事。在这个意义上，中国和美国的政治制度，目前都受到各自民众的支持。
有一种观点认为，除非中国共产党能做到，假如失去支持后就交权下台，才能证明这个党目前受到的支持具有合法性。按照这个逻辑推演，不难得出这样的结论，即如果美国当前的民主制度失去了民众的支持，美国就必须取消选举，废除权利法案，并建立独裁或者其他形式的政权。这显然荒谬无比。政治权力要实现和平交接和轮换，其前提是承认既定的政治制度，而后者恰恰是很难改动一分一毫的。在美国短短两百多年的历史上，围绕政治制度的建立和巩固，已经发生过两次惨烈的战争。即使是在民主代议制下，要实现从总统制到议会制的变更，也几乎毫无可能，反之亦然。
许多人认为，西方的民主制度更高级。因为通过选举实现政党轮换，可以保持政府和政策的灵活性，以因应时代的变化，并更好地反映民众的意愿。相比之下，中国的政治制度过于僵硬，一党执政垄断了政治权力，隔绝了民众的呼声。
然而只要对事实稍加梳理，就会发现上述观点极为可笑。从1949年建政以来，中国共产党一直是中国的执政党，但期间中国在政府政策和政治环境方面的变化，幅度之大在世界政治史上罕见 。从最初的新民主主义联盟到50年代初激烈的土地改革；从大跃进到60年代初的土地准私有化；从文化大革命到邓小平的市场化改革，乃至江泽民通过“三个代表”理论对党重新定位，等等，中国国内政治在各阶段的对比差别令人难以置信。在外交政策上，中国在50年代向苏联“一边倒”，到70年代事实上已与美国结成同盟，到80年代又重新恢复与苏联的关系，今天中国在多极化的世界坚持独立立场，在世界各国成为引人注目的角色。从毛泽东、邓小平、江泽民到胡锦涛，以及接下来的习近平，中国共产党的领导人在政治观点和政策制定上在与时俱进的过程中有着巨大的变迁，这一点无人会否认，他们之间的差别可能远远超出其他政治制度下交替掌权的领导人。六十年来，中国共产党也犯下了许多错误，但却能大幅度的自我纠正，比如被视为一场灾难的文化大革命就被彻底否定。同时，中国从一个四分五裂的国家演变成为今天这样举世瞩目的大国，这一事实足以证明中国的一党执政制度具有卓越的自我更新和更正能力。
然而，就世界各国代议制政府执政的记录来看，通过选举实行政党轮换却并不能提供政策更正必须的灵活性。在美国，通过选举能决定新的总统人选和国会多数党，但对解决美国面临的长期挑战似乎并无太大帮助；在欧洲，通过选举能完成政府有规律地轮换，但对各国面临的巨大困境束手无策；在每年换一个首相的日本，选举和政党轮换无法将这个国家拉出已长达20年的停滞。或许这可以解释为何世界上很多选举产生的政府，支持率常常很快不足50%，而一党执政的中国政府，其支持率多年来一直保持在80%以上。
现在全球正迎来新一波政治变革，中国、日本、西方世界和阿拉伯世界都身逢其会。此时此刻，水可载舟乎？亦可覆舟乎？究竟怎么样的政治制度，才能获得民众的信赖呢？如果少一点意识形态的偏见，多一点思考的诚实，就不会看不到这样的朴素事实：通过选举实行政府轮换，并不一定能确保灵活性和合法性；而一党执政并不意味着制度僵硬或缺乏民众支持。如果那些自信其政治制度具有道德优越性的国家，能在言辞和军事上有所收敛，并自我反思，或许能稍稍改善其自身的困境。不过就目前来看，这只能是一种良好的愿望。那么回过头来，现在究竟是谁面临“坏皇帝”的困境呢？
作者简介：李世默，中欧商学院校董，春秋综合研究院研究员
【英文原版】
THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES
By: Eric X. Li
Change is in the air. By revolutions, elections and other methods, governments are changing hands across a wide swath of the world. Two 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 twelve months, America’s two-party electoral democracy will elect a president and a new Congress, and China’s one-party state will also produce a new leadership. With the myriad of seemingly intractable problems facing human societies everywhere, what is the “best” system of governance is again hotly debated.
Intellectual giants no less than Francis Fukuyama are entering the fray. In his new tome “The Origins of Political Order” and related writings, 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”? 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, the fatal flaw in the system is that there is no way to “induce” the Party to giver up power if and when it loses the people’s support.
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. 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 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. 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.
Some say that in the hypothetical situation in which the Party lost popular support it should step down from power, and only when this is ensured the support of the people the Party currently carries could be rendered legitimate. Such 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 U.S. must do away with elections, cancel the Bill of Rights, and install an authoritarian or some other system of governance. 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. Even within an electoral democracy, it is nearly impossible to change from a presidential system to a parliamentary one or vice versa.
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 Party’s monopoly on power disconnects it from the people.
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 1950’s, from the Great Leap Forward to the quasi privatization of farm land in the early 1960’s, from the Cultural Revolution to Deng Xiaopin’s market reform and Jiang Zemin’s re-definition of the Party through his “Theory of Three Represents”, China’s domestic politics is almost unrecognizable from one period to another. In foreign policy, China moved from a close alliance with the Soviet Union in the 1950’s to a virtual alliance with the United States in the 1970’s and 80’s 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 that move in and out of power under any other political systems. Through the 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.
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 do not seem to have done much to tackle America’s long-term challenges. 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% approval rating in their countries and China’s one-party government retains above 80% approval for decades.
In 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. Perhaps, and just perhaps, if those who are convinced of the moral superiority of their political system would spare the energy from lecturing, verbally and militarily, and spend it on some self-reflection, it might even help their own countries. Who are really having “bad emperor” problems?
Eric X. Li is a venture capitalist in Shanghai and a doctoral candidate at Fudan University’s School of International Relations and Public Affairs.
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
本文发表于10月17日《基督教科学箴言报》
这是一个变革的时代。望眼世界，革命、选举或者其他原因正导致无数政府面临权力交接。在这些令人眼花缭乱的变动中，美国和中国是当今世界的中坚，其政治权力的和平交接，无疑最受人关注。其中，前者通过代议制下的两党竞选，将选出下届总统和新国会，而后者在一党执政的体制下，也要产生新的领导层。当前，世界各国普遍遭遇困境和挑战，关于什么是最“好”的政治制度，再次成为争论焦点。
这场争论吸引了许多重要的知识分子参与，其中就包括政治学界的思想家弗朗西斯・福山。在最近的《政治秩序的起源》以及其他相关著作中，福山提出尽管一党执政的中国目前十分成功，但在制度上却无法解决“坏皇帝”的问题。更具体地说，就是一旦皇帝变“坏”，大家都将束手无策。另有一位评论家更是进一步推演了此担忧。他认为，虽然当前的民意调查说明中国共产党享有高度支持，但在这个制度下，即使中国共产党失去了民众的支持，却无法“促使”其放弃权力，这才是最致命的问题。
但这是个伪推论。中国古谚言道：“夫君者舟也，人者水也。水可载舟，亦可覆舟。”古代的帝国和王国，已被今天的民族国家取而代之。在此比喻里，民众依然可以被理解成“水”，而“舟”已不再是某位皇帝或他的王朝，而是构成现代民族国家的庞大而复杂的政治制度。中国的一党执政制度在宪法中有明确宣示，正如美国宪法明文规定了民主代议制。中国共产党的执政受到民众长期、普遍的支持，而独立的民意调查结果也反复印证了此点。在一党执政的政治宪法下，这即意味着对基本政治制度的支持。而在美国，民众对共和党或民主党的支持度此消彼长，但这与其对美国的基本政治制度，即民主代议制的支持程度不是一回事。在这个意义上，中国和美国的政治制度，目前都受到各自民众的支持。
有一种观点认为，除非中国共产党能做到，假如失去支持后就交权下台，才能证明这个党目前受到的支持具有合法性。按照这个逻辑推演，不难得出这样的结论，即如果美国当前的民主制度失去了民众的支持，美国就必须取消选举，废除权利法案，并建立独裁或者其他形式的政权。这显然荒谬无比。政治权力要实现和平交接和轮换，其前提是承认既定的政治制度，而后者恰恰是很难改动一分一毫的。在美国短短两百多年的历史上，围绕政治制度的建立和巩固，已经发生过两次惨烈的战争。即使是在民主代议制下，要实现从总统制到议会制的变更，也几乎毫无可能，反之亦然。
许多人认为，西方的民主制度更高级。因为通过选举实现政党轮换，可以保持政府和政策的灵活性，以因应时代的变化，并更好地反映民众的意愿。相比之下，中国的政治制度过于僵硬，一党执政垄断了政治权力，隔绝了民众的呼声。
然而只要对事实稍加梳理，就会发现上述观点极为可笑。从1949年建政以来，中国共产党一直是中国的执政党，但期间中国在政府政策和政治环境方面的变化，幅度之大在世界政治史上罕见 。从最初的新民主主义联盟到50年代初激烈的土地改革；从大跃进到60年代初的土地准私有化；从文化大革命到邓小平的市场化改革，乃至江泽民通过“三个代表”理论对党重新定位，等等，中国国内政治在各阶段的对比差别令人难以置信。在外交政策上，中国在50年代向苏联“一边倒”，到70年代事实上已与美国结成同盟，到80年代又重新恢复与苏联的关系，今天中国在多极化的世界坚持独立立场，在世界各国成为引人注目的角色。从毛泽东、邓小平、江泽民到胡锦涛，以及接下来的习近平，中国共产党的领导人在政治观点和政策制定上在与时俱进的过程中有着巨大的变迁，这一点无人会否认，他们之间的差别可能远远超出其他政治制度下交替掌权的领导人。六十年来，中国共产党也犯下了许多错误，但却能大幅度的自我纠正，比如被视为一场灾难的文化大革命就被彻底否定。同时，中国从一个四分五裂的国家演变成为今天这样举世瞩目的大国，这一事实足以证明中国的一党执政制度具有卓越的自我更新和更正能力。
然而，就世界各国代议制政府执政的记录来看，通过选举实行政党轮换却并不能提供政策更正必须的灵活性。在美国，通过选举能决定新的总统人选和国会多数党，但对解决美国面临的长期挑战似乎并无太大帮助；在欧洲，通过选举能完成政府有规律地轮换，但对各国面临的巨大困境束手无策；在每年换一个首相的日本，选举和政党轮换无法将这个国家拉出已长达20年的停滞。或许这可以解释为何世界上很多选举产生的政府，支持率常常很快不足50%，而一党执政的中国政府，其支持率多年来一直保持在80%以上。
现在全球正迎来新一波政治变革，中国、日本、西方世界和阿拉伯世界都身逢其会。此时此刻，水可载舟乎？亦可覆舟乎？究竟怎么样的政治制度，才能获得民众的信赖呢？如果少一点意识形态的偏见，多一点思考的诚实，就不会看不到这样的朴素事实：通过选举实行政府轮换，并不一定能确保灵活性和合法性；而一党执政并不意味着制度僵硬或缺乏民众支持。如果那些自信其政治制度具有道德优越性的国家，能在言辞和军事上有所收敛，并自我反思，或许能稍稍改善其自身的困境。不过就目前来看，这只能是一种良好的愿望。那么回过头来，现在究竟是谁面临“坏皇帝”的困境呢？
作者简介：李世默，中欧商学院校董，春秋综合研究院研究员
【英文原版】
THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES
By: Eric X. Li
Change is in the air. By revolutions, elections and other methods, governments are changing hands across a wide swath of the world. Two 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 twelve months, America’s two-party electoral democracy will elect a president and a new Congress, and China’s one-party state will also produce a new leadership. With the myriad of seemingly intractable problems facing human societies everywhere, what is the “best” system of governance is again hotly debated.
Intellectual giants no less than Francis Fukuyama are entering the fray. In his new tome “The Origins of Political Order” and related writings, 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”? 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, the fatal flaw in the system is that there is no way to “induce” the Party to giver up power if and when it loses the people’s support.
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. 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 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. 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.
Some say that in the hypothetical situation in which the Party lost popular support it should step down from power, and only when this is ensured the support of the people the Party currently carries could be rendered legitimate. Such 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 U.S. must do away with elections, cancel the Bill of Rights, and install an authoritarian or some other system of governance. 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. Even within an electoral democracy, it is nearly impossible to change from a presidential system to a parliamentary one or vice versa.
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 Party’s monopoly on power disconnects it from the people.
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 1950’s, from the Great Leap Forward to the quasi privatization of farm land in the early 1960’s, from the Cultural Revolution to Deng Xiaopin’s market reform and Jiang Zemin’s re-definition of the Party through his “Theory of Three Represents”, China’s domestic politics is almost unrecognizable from one period to another. In foreign policy, China moved from a close alliance with the Soviet Union in the 1950’s to a virtual alliance with the United States in the 1970’s and 80’s 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 that move in and out of power under any other political systems. Through the 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.
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 do not seem to have done much to tackle America’s long-term challenges. 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% approval rating in their countries and China’s one-party government retains above 80% approval for decades.
In 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. Perhaps, and just perhaps, if those who are convinced of the moral superiority of their political system would spare the energy from lecturing, verbally and militarily, and spend it on some self-reflection, it might even help their own countries. Who are really having “bad emperor” problems?
Eric X. Li is a venture capitalist in Shanghai and a doctoral candidate at Fudan University’s School of International Relations and Public Affairs.
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
这是一个变革的时代。望眼世界，革命、选举或者其他原因正导致无数政府面临权力交接。在这些令人眼花缭乱的变动中，美国和中国是当今世界的中坚，其政治权力的和平交接，无疑最受人关注。其中，前者通过代议制下的两党竞选，将选出下届总统和新国会，而后者在一党执政的体制下，也要产生新的领导层。当前，世界各国普遍遭遇困境和挑战，关于什么是最“好”的政治制度，再次成为争论焦点。
这场争论吸引了许多重要的知识分子参与，其中就包括政治学界的思想家弗朗西斯・福山。在最近的《政治秩序的起源》以及其他相关著作中，福山提出尽管一党执政的中国目前十分成功，但在制度上却无法解决“坏皇帝”的问题。更具体地说，就是一旦皇帝变“坏”，大家都将束手无策。另有一位评论家更是进一步推演了此担忧。他认为，虽然当前的民意调查说明中国共产党享有高度支持，但在这个制度下，即使中国共产党失去了民众的支持，却无法“促使”其放弃权力，这才是最致命的问题。
但这是个伪推论。中国古谚言道：“夫君者舟也，人者水也。水可载舟，亦可覆舟。”古代的帝国和王国，已被今天的民族国家取而代之。在此比喻里，民众依然可以被理解成“水”，而“舟”已不再是某位皇帝或他的王朝，而是构成现代民族国家的庞大而复杂的政治制度。中国的一党执政制度在宪法中有明确宣示，正如美国宪法明文规定了民主代议制。中国共产党的执政受到民众长期、普遍的支持，而独立的民意调查结果也反复印证了此点。在一党执政的政治宪法下，这即意味着对基本政治制度的支持。而在美国，民众对共和党或民主党的支持度此消彼长，但这与其对美国的基本政治制度，即民主代议制的支持程度不是一回事。在这个意义上，中国和美国的政治制度，目前都受到各自民众的支持。
有一种观点认为，除非中国共产党能做到，假如失去支持后就交权下台，才能证明这个党目前受到的支持具有合法性。按照这个逻辑推演，不难得出这样的结论，即如果美国当前的民主制度失去了民众的支持，美国就必须取消选举，废除权利法案，并建立独裁或者其他形式的政权。这显然荒谬无比。政治权力要实现和平交接和轮换，其前提是承认既定的政治制度，而后者恰恰是很难改动一分一毫的。在美国短短两百多年的历史上，围绕政治制度的建立和巩固，已经发生过两次惨烈的战争。即使是在民主代议制下，要实现从总统制到议会制的变更，也几乎毫无可能，反之亦然。
许多人认为，西方的民主制度更高级。因为通过选举实现政党轮换，可以保持政府和政策的灵活性，以因应时代的变化，并更好地反映民众的意愿。相比之下，中国的政治制度过于僵硬，一党执政垄断了政治权力，隔绝了民众的呼声。
然而只要对事实稍加梳理，就会发现上述观点极为可笑。从1949年建政以来，中国共产党一直是中国的执政党，但期间中国在政府政策和政治环境方面的变化，幅度之大在世界政治史上罕见 。从最初的新民主主义联盟到50年代初激烈的土地改革；从大跃进到60年代初的土地准私有化；从文化大革命到邓小平的市场化改革，乃至江泽民通过“三个代表”理论对党重新定位，等等，中国国内政治在各阶段的对比差别令人难以置信。在外交政策上，中国在50年代向苏联“一边倒”，到70年代事实上已与美国结成同盟，到80年代又重新恢复与苏联的关系，今天中国在多极化的世界坚持独立立场，在世界各国成为引人注目的角色。从毛泽东、邓小平、江泽民到胡锦涛，以及接下来的习近平，中国共产党的领导人在政治观点和政策制定上在与时俱进的过程中有着巨大的变迁，这一点无人会否认，他们之间的差别可能远远超出其他政治制度下交替掌权的领导人。六十年来，中国共产党也犯下了许多错误，但却能大幅度的自我纠正，比如被视为一场灾难的文化大革命就被彻底否定。同时，中国从一个四分五裂的国家演变成为今天这样举世瞩目的大国，这一事实足以证明中国的一党执政制度具有卓越的自我更新和更正能力。
然而，就世界各国代议制政府执政的记录来看，通过选举实行政党轮换却并不能提供政策更正必须的灵活性。在美国，通过选举能决定新的总统人选和国会多数党，但对解决美国面临的长期挑战似乎并无太大帮助；在欧洲，通过选举能完成政府有规律地轮换，但对各国面临的巨大困境束手无策；在每年换一个首相的日本，选举和政党轮换无法将这个国家拉出已长达20年的停滞。或许这可以解释为何世界上很多选举产生的政府，支持率常常很快不足50%，而一党执政的中国政府，其支持率多年来一直保持在80%以上。
现在全球正迎来新一波政治变革，中国、日本、西方世界和阿拉伯世界都身逢其会。此时此刻，水可载舟乎？亦可覆舟乎？究竟怎么样的政治制度，才能获得民众的信赖呢？如果少一点意识形态的偏见，多一点思考的诚实，就不会看不到这样的朴素事实：通过选举实行政府轮换，并不一定能确保灵活性和合法性；而一党执政并不意味着制度僵硬或缺乏民众支持。如果那些自信其政治制度具有道德优越性的国家，能在言辞和军事上有所收敛，并自我反思，或许能稍稍改善其自身的困境。不过就目前来看，这只能是一种良好的愿望。那么回过头来，现在究竟是谁面临“坏皇帝”的困境呢？
作者简介：李世默，中欧商学院校董，春秋综合研究院研究员
【英文原版】
THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES
By: Eric X. Li
Change is in the air. By revolutions, elections and other methods, governments are changing hands across a wide swath of the world. Two 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 twelve months, America’s two-party electoral democracy will elect a president and a new Congress, and China’s one-party state will also produce a new leadership. With the myriad of seemingly intractable problems facing human societies everywhere, what is the “best” system of governance is again hotly debated.
Intellectual giants no less than Francis Fukuyama are entering the fray. In his new tome “The Origins of Political Order” and related writings, 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”? 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, the fatal flaw in the system is that there is no way to “induce” the Party to giver up power if and when it loses the people’s support.
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. 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 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. 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.
Some say that in the hypothetical situation in which the Party lost popular support it should step down from power, and only when this is ensured the support of the people the Party currently carries could be rendered legitimate. Such 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 U.S. must do away with elections, cancel the Bill of Rights, and install an authoritarian or some other system of governance. 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. Even within an electoral democracy, it is nearly impossible to change from a presidential system to a parliamentary one or vice versa.
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 Party’s monopoly on power disconnects it from the people.
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 1950’s, from the Great Leap Forward to the quasi privatization of farm land in the early 1960’s, from the Cultural Revolution to Deng Xiaopin’s market reform and Jiang Zemin’s re-definition of the Party through his “Theory of Three Represents”, China’s domestic politics is almost unrecognizable from one period to another. In foreign policy, China moved from a close alliance with the Soviet Union in the 1950’s to a virtual alliance with the United States in the 1970’s and 80’s 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 that move in and out of power under any other political systems. Through the 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.
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 do not seem to have done much to tackle America’s long-term challenges. 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% approval rating in their countries and China’s one-party government retains above 80% approval for decades.
In 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. Perhaps, and just perhaps, if those who are convinced of the moral superiority of their political system would spare the energy from lecturing, verbally and militarily, and spend it on some self-reflection, it might even help their own countries. Who are really having “bad emperor” problems?
Eric X. Li is a venture capitalist in Shanghai and a doctoral candidate at Fudan University’s School of International Relations and Public Affairs.
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
本文发表于10月17日《基督教科学箴言报》
这是一个变革的时代。望眼世界，革命、选举或者其他原因正导致无数政府面临权力交接。在这些令人眼花缭乱的变动中，美国和中国是当今世界的中坚，其政治权力的和平交接，无疑最受人关注。其中，前者通过代议制下的两党竞选，将选出下届总统和新国会，而后者在一党执政的体制下，也要产生新的领导层。当前，世界各国普遍遭遇困境和挑战，关于什么是最“好”的政治制度，再次成为争论焦点。
这场争论吸引了许多重要的知识分子参与，其中就包括政治学界的思想家弗朗西斯・福山。在最近的《政治秩序的起源》以及其他相关著作中，福山提出尽管一党执政的中国目前十分成功，但在制度上却无法解决“坏皇帝”的问题。更具体地说，就是一旦皇帝变“坏”，大家都将束手无策。另有一位评论家更是进一步推演了此担忧。他认为，虽然当前的民意调查说明中国共产党享有高度支持，但在这个制度下，即使中国共产党失去了民众的支持，却无法“促使”其放弃权力，这才是最致命的问题。
但这是个伪推论。中国古谚言道：“夫君者舟也，人者水也。水可载舟，亦可覆舟。”古代的帝国和王国，已被今天的民族国家取而代之。在此比喻里，民众依然可以被理解成“水”，而“舟”已不再是某位皇帝或他的王朝，而是构成现代民族国家的庞大而复杂的政治制度。中国的一党执政制度在宪法中有明确宣示，正如美国宪法明文规定了民主代议制。中国共产党的执政受到民众长期、普遍的支持，而独立的民意调查结果也反复印证了此点。在一党执政的政治宪法下，这即意味着对基本政治制度的支持。而在美国，民众对共和党或民主党的支持度此消彼长，但这与其对美国的基本政治制度，即民主代议制的支持程度不是一回事。在这个意义上，中国和美国的政治制度，目前都受到各自民众的支持。
有一种观点认为，除非中国共产党能做到，假如失去支持后就交权下台，才能证明这个党目前受到的支持具有合法性。按照这个逻辑推演，不难得出这样的结论，即如果美国当前的民主制度失去了民众的支持，美国就必须取消选举，废除权利法案，并建立独裁或者其他形式的政权。这显然荒谬无比。政治权力要实现和平交接和轮换，其前提是承认既定的政治制度，而后者恰恰是很难改动一分一毫的。在美国短短两百多年的历史上，围绕政治制度的建立和巩固，已经发生过两次惨烈的战争。即使是在民主代议制下，要实现从总统制到议会制的变更，也几乎毫无可能，反之亦然。
许多人认为，西方的民主制度更高级。因为通过选举实现政党轮换，可以保持政府和政策的灵活性，以因应时代的变化，并更好地反映民众的意愿。相比之下，中国的政治制度过于僵硬，一党执政垄断了政治权力，隔绝了民众的呼声。
然而只要对事实稍加梳理，就会发现上述观点极为可笑。从1949年建政以来，中国共产党一直是中国的执政党，但期间中国在政府政策和政治环境方面的变化，幅度之大在世界政治史上罕见 。从最初的新民主主义联盟到50年代初激烈的土地改革；从大跃进到60年代初的土地准私有化；从文化大革命到邓小平的市场化改革，乃至江泽民通过“三个代表”理论对党重新定位，等等，中国国内政治在各阶段的对比差别令人难以置信。在外交政策上，中国在50年代向苏联“一边倒”，到70年代事实上已与美国结成同盟，到80年代又重新恢复与苏联的关系，今天中国在多极化的世界坚持独立立场，在世界各国成为引人注目的角色。从毛泽东、邓小平、江泽民到胡锦涛，以及接下来的习近平，中国共产党的领导人在政治观点和政策制定上在与时俱进的过程中有着巨大的变迁，这一点无人会否认，他们之间的差别可能远远超出其他政治制度下交替掌权的领导人。六十年来，中国共产党也犯下了许多错误，但却能大幅度的自我纠正，比如被视为一场灾难的文化大革命就被彻底否定。同时，中国从一个四分五裂的国家演变成为今天这样举世瞩目的大国，这一事实足以证明中国的一党执政制度具有卓越的自我更新和更正能力。
然而，就世界各国代议制政府执政的记录来看，通过选举实行政党轮换却并不能提供政策更正必须的灵活性。在美国，通过选举能决定新的总统人选和国会多数党，但对解决美国面临的长期挑战似乎并无太大帮助；在欧洲，通过选举能完成政府有规律地轮换，但对各国面临的巨大困境束手无策；在每年换一个首相的日本，选举和政党轮换无法将这个国家拉出已长达20年的停滞。或许这可以解释为何世界上很多选举产生的政府，支持率常常很快不足50%，而一党执政的中国政府，其支持率多年来一直保持在80%以上。
现在全球正迎来新一波政治变革，中国、日本、西方世界和阿拉伯世界都身逢其会。此时此刻，水可载舟乎？亦可覆舟乎？究竟怎么样的政治制度，才能获得民众的信赖呢？如果少一点意识形态的偏见，多一点思考的诚实，就不会看不到这样的朴素事实：通过选举实行政府轮换，并不一定能确保灵活性和合法性；而一党执政并不意味着制度僵硬或缺乏民众支持。如果那些自信其政治制度具有道德优越性的国家，能在言辞和军事上有所收敛，并自我反思，或许能稍稍改善其自身的困境。不过就目前来看，这只能是一种良好的愿望。那么回过头来，现在究竟是谁面临“坏皇帝”的困境呢？
作者简介：李世默，中欧商学院校董，春秋综合研究院研究员
【英文原版】
THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES
By: Eric X. Li
Change is in the air. By revolutions, elections and other methods, governments are changing hands across a wide swath of the world. Two 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 twelve months, America’s two-party electoral democracy will elect a president and a new Congress, and China’s one-party state will also produce a new leadership. With the myriad of seemingly intractable problems facing human societies everywhere, what is the “best” system of governance is again hotly debated.
Intellectual giants no less than Francis Fukuyama are entering the fray. In his new tome “The Origins of Political Order” and related writings, 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”? 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, the fatal flaw in the system is that there is no way to “induce” the Party to giver up power if and when it loses the people’s support.
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. 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 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. 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.
Some say that in the hypothetical situation in which the Party lost popular support it should step down from power, and only when this is ensured the support of the people the Party currently carries could be rendered legitimate. Such 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 U.S. must do away with elections, cancel the Bill of Rights, and install an authoritarian or some other system of governance. 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. Even within an electoral democracy, it is nearly impossible to change from a presidential system to a parliamentary one or vice versa.
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 Party’s monopoly on power disconnects it from the people.
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 1950’s, from the Great Leap Forward to the quasi privatization of farm land in the early 1960’s, from the Cultural Revolution to Deng Xiaopin’s market reform and Jiang Zemin’s re-definition of the Party through his “Theory of Three Represents”, China’s domestic politics is almost unrecognizable from one period to another. In foreign policy, China moved from a close alliance with the Soviet Union in the 1950’s to a virtual alliance with the United States in the 1970’s and 80’s 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 that move in and out of power under any other political systems. Through the 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.
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 do not seem to have done much to tackle America’s long-term challenges. 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% approval rating in their countries and China’s one-party government retains above 80% approval for decades.
In 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. Perhaps, and just perhaps, if those who are convinced of the moral superiority of their political system would spare the energy from lecturing, verbally and militarily, and spend it on some self-reflection, it might even help their own countries. Who are really having “bad emperor” problems?
Eric X. Li is a venture capitalist in Shanghai and a doctoral candidate at Fudan University’s School of International Relations and Public Affairs.
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.