李世默：中國的政治體制比美國更靈活
這是一個變革的時代。放眼世界，革命、選舉或者其他原因正導致無數政府面臨權力交接。在這些令人眼花繚亂的變動中，美國和中國是當今世界的中堅，其政治權力的和平交接，無疑最受人關注。其中，前者通過代議制下的兩黨競選，將選出下屆總統和新國會，而後者在一黨執政的體制下，也要產生新的領導層。當前，世界各國普遍遭遇困境和挑戰，關於什麼是最“好”的政治制度，再次成為爭論焦點。
這場爭論吸引了許多重要的知識分子參與，其中就包括政治學界的思想家弗朗西斯·福山。在最近的《政治秩序的起源》以及其他相關著作中，福山提出儘管一黨執政的中國目前十分成功，但在制度上卻無法解決“壞皇帝”的問題。更具體地説，就是一旦皇帝變“壞”，大家都將束手無策。另有一位評論家更是進一步推演了此擔憂。他認為，雖然當前的民意調查説明中國共產黨享有高度支持，但在這個制度下，即使中國共產黨失去了民眾的支持，卻無法“促使”其放棄權力，這才是最致命的問題。
但這是個偽推論。中國古諺言道：“夫君者舟也，人者水也。水可載舟，亦可覆舟。”古代的帝國和王國，已被今天的民族國家取而代之。在此比喻裏，民眾依然可以被理解成“水”，而“舟”已不再是某位皇帝或他的王朝，而是構成現代民族國家的龐大而複雜的政治制度。中國的一黨執政制度在憲法中有明確宣示，正如美國憲法明文規定了民主代議制。中國共產黨的執政受到民眾長期、普遍的支持，而獨立的民意調查結果也反覆印證了此點。在一黨執政的政治憲法下，這即意味着對基本政治制度的支持。而在美國，民眾對共和黨或民主黨的支持度此消彼長，但這與其對美國的基本政治制度，即民主代議制的支持程度不是一回事。在這個意義上，中國和美國的政治制度，目前都受到各自民眾的支持。
有一種觀點認為，除非中國共產黨能做到，假如失去支持後就交權下台，才能證明這個黨目前受到的支持具有合法性。按照這個邏輯推演，不難得出這樣的結論，即如果美國當前的民主制度失去了民眾的支持，美國就必須取消選舉，廢除權利法案，並建立獨裁或者其他形式的政權。這顯然荒謬無比。政治權力要實現和平交接和輪換，其前提是承認既定的政治制度，而後者恰恰是很難改動一分一毫的。在美國短短兩百多年的歷史上，圍繞政治制度的建立和鞏固，已經發生過兩次慘烈的戰爭。即使是在民主代議制下，要實現從總統制到議會制的變更，也幾乎毫無可能，反之亦然。
許多人認為，西方的民主制度更高級。因為通過選舉實現政黨輪換，可以保持政府和政策的靈活性，以因應時代的變化，並更好地反映民眾的意願。相比之下，中國的政治制度過於僵硬，一黨執政壟斷了政治權力，隔絕了民眾的呼聲。
然而只要對事實稍加梳理，就會發現上述觀點極為可笑。從1949年建政以來，中國共產黨一直是中國的執政黨，其間中國在政府政策和政治環境方面的變化，幅度之大在世界政治史上罕見 。從最初的新民主主義聯盟到50年代初激烈的土地改革；從大躍進到60年代初的土地準私有化；從“文化大革命”到鄧小平的市場化改革，乃至江澤民通過“三個代表”理論對黨重新定位，等等，中國國內政治在各階段的對比差別令人難以置信。在外交政策上，中國在50年代向蘇聯“一邊倒”，到70年代事實上已與美國結成同盟，到80年代又重新恢復與蘇聯的關係，今天中國在多極化的世界堅持獨立立場，在世界各國成為引人注目的角色。從毛澤東、鄧小平、江澤民到胡錦濤，以及接下來的習近平，中國共產黨的領導人在政治觀點和政策制定上在與時俱進的過程中有着巨大的變遷，這一點無人會否認，他們之間的差別可能遠遠超出其他政治制度下交替掌權的領導人。60年來，中國共產黨也犯下了許多錯誤，但卻能大幅度地自我糾正，比如被視為一場災難的“文化大革命”就被徹底否定。同時，中國從一個四分五裂的國家演變成為今天這樣舉世矚目的大國，這一事實足以證明中國的一黨執政制度具有卓越的自我更新和更正能力。
然而，就世界各國代議制政府執政的記錄來看，通過選舉實行政黨輪換卻並不能提供政策更正必需的靈活性。在美國，通過選舉能決定新的總統人選和國會多數黨，但對解決美國面臨的長期挑戰似乎並無太大幫助；在歐洲，通過選舉能完成政府有規律的輪換，但對各國面臨的巨大困境束手無策；在每年換一個首相的日本，選舉和政黨輪換無法將這個國家拉出已長達20年的停滯。或許這可以解釋為何世界上很多選舉產生的政府，支持率常常很快不足50%，而一黨執政的中國政府，其支持率多年來一直保持在80%以上。
現在全球正迎來新一波政治變革，中國、日本、西方世界和阿拉伯世界都身逢其會。此時此刻，水可載舟乎？亦可覆舟乎？究竟怎麼樣的政治制度，才能獲得民眾的信賴呢？如果少一點意識形態的偏見，多一點思考的誠實，就不會看不到這樣的樸素事實：通過選舉實行政府輪換，並不一定能確保靈活性和合法性；而一黨執政並不意味着制度僵硬或缺乏民眾支持。如果那些自信其政治制度具有道德優越性的國家，能在言辭和軍事上有所收斂，並自我反思，或許能稍稍改善其自身的困境。不過就目前來看，這隻能是一種良好的願望。那麼回過頭來，現在究竟是誰面臨“壞皇帝”的困境呢？
作者系春秋綜合研究院董事局主席，中歐國際工商學院校董
本文發表於2011年10月17日《基督教科學箴言報》，原文鏈接：
本文同時發表於2011年10月17日《南華早報》，原文鏈接：
中譯文版權歸觀察者網所有，轉載須註明。
《參考消息》刊載李世默文章，題為：中國政治體制比美國更靈活。
Many people believe the Western democracy is superior to a one-party system because the rotation of political power gives government the flexibility to make needed policy changes. But China’s one-party system has proven over time to be remarkably adaptable to changing times.
The Christian Science Monitor:
China’s political system
is more flexible than US democracy
By Eric Li
Published: October 17, 2011
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.
2011年10月17日《基督教科學箴言報》刊載李世默文章，題為：
China’s political system is more flexible than US democracy
2011年10月17日《南華早報》同時刊載本文，題為：
Electoral vs one-party regimes