赫爾穆特·施密特：“我不會向中國推銷民主”——第一部分-汪暉、赫爾穆特·施密特

美國《赫芬頓郵報》新聞評論網站《世界郵報》2014年4月1日刊載觀察者網供稿《赫爾穆特•施密特：“我不會向中國推銷民主”——第一部分》。觀察者網李楚悦翻譯全文如下：

《赫芬頓郵報》刊載觀察者網供文

近日，中國學者汪暉在漢堡與德國政治家赫爾穆特•施密特進行了會談。

汪暉曾擔任頗具影響力的學術期刊——《讀書》雜誌的主編，2007年卸任。他曾進行開創性研究，著有四卷本《現代中國思想的興起》。95歲的赫爾穆特•施密特，於1974年至1982年任德國（西德）總理，曾多次訪華會見毛澤東和鄧小平。

第一部分——“我不會向中國人推銷民主”

汪暉：有一個問題我想向你請教。在中國，不僅在知識分子羣體之中，而且在共產黨黨內一直存在關於政治體制改革的爭論。眾所周知，政治體制改革是必要的，但是要如何進行改革？你對中國的政治體制改革有什麼建議？

赫爾穆特•施密特：（笑）幸好我不是坐在習近平的位置上！有太多問題需要同時解決。一方面，讓我吃驚和很受鼓舞的是，中國現在每10年都會進行領導層的換屆，新老交替。沒人再像毛澤東或者鄧小平執政那麼長時間。

另一方面，作為一個外國人，一個歐洲人，我不太熟悉習近平，也不瞭解他身邊的同僚。

汪暉：那關於政黨體制呢？

施密特：我認為鄧小平的“建設有中國特色的民主國家”沒有把話講清楚。含義不夠清晰。什麼是中國特色？我認為你們必須找到自己的道路，無論如何，中國已經成為世界經濟的重要因素。

事實上，目前依靠出口發展經濟的中國無法停下改革開放的步伐，一旦停下，就會造成數千萬人失業。中國龐大的貿易盈餘對世界經濟發展的傷害程度只比德國好一點。德國在貿易差額中的盈餘比中國更甚。這簡直荒謬。

汪暉：你説習近平處於非常複雜的環境之中，同時有許多事情需要解決，很難辦。但中國的一些人對政治體制改革有不同的觀點。

有人想要複製西方的多黨制體系，也有人主張中國需要的民主是基層民主和一些頂層機制，而不需要國家層面的選舉制度。你對此有什麼看法？

施密特：民主並非人類的終極目標。在未來的幾個世紀裏，人類或許會朝許多不同的方向發展。始於美國《獨立宣言》的民主制度至今只存在了大約200年，而美國人的思想來自歐洲，主要來自法國、荷蘭和英國。

民主也存在許多嚴重的問題，比如，必須每隔四年進行選舉，候選人就會專挑公眾愛聽的説。多黨制體系不是政治進程的最高點，只是我們目前最好的制度。我會為了維持民主制度而奮鬥，但我不會將它推銷給中國人。

英國人曾經將它推銷給印度人和巴基斯坦人，而荷蘭人曾經試圖將其強賣給印度尼西亞人。民主制度在印度並不奏效。我不會向埃及人介紹民主，也不會將其拋給其他穆斯林國家，比如馬來西亞、伊朗和巴基斯坦。民主是西方創造而生，不是孔子發明的，而是由孟德斯鳩這樣的法國人、約翰•洛克以及一些荷蘭人發明的。

汪暉：很少有西方領導人像你這樣談論這些問題。

施密特：這不能證明我就是錯的。

西方民主制較為關鍵的一點是，不需流血就能實現政權的更迭。這是一個巨大的優點，但從歷史上説，民主仍是近代西方的產物。它未曾在古羅馬實行過，在古希臘也只實行了不到200年，民主制度沒有在世界上任何其他國家實行過，直至美國脱離英國君主制宣告獨立。

甚至在古希臘的伯利克里時代，都是存在奴隸的。只有希臘公民才有投票權，每一個希臘公民，就有三個沒有投票權的希臘人，而且其中至少有一個是奴隸。

甚至在美國，奴隸制直至19世紀中期才被官方廢除，南北戰爭也是關於奴隸制。但別忘了，到本世紀中葉，墨西哥人和非裔美國人以及他們的子女將構成美國一半選民。屆時無論是誰總統都得聽從他們的選民。美國會從一個世界大國變成其他模樣，中國也會改變。而中國是否會變成民主國家還尚待觀察，我認為是不會的。

汪暉：西方的多黨制和中國共產黨領導下的多黨合作制，其政黨的代表性都已減弱。今天的大多數政黨看上去都像是國家政黨，政黨將好處分給俘獲國家的若干特殊利益集團。政黨不再具有代表各類社會力量的政治性組織。

比如，中國共產黨已經不再是20世紀意義上的共產黨，而是一個國家政黨，這意味着其已幾乎完全與國家架構相融合。政黨的功能也與國家行政機構類似，而不是一個政治組織。這樣的現象在世界各地發生，我們現在看到的是政治體制在脱離社會。

我們需要創造另一種政治。雖然民主制度極具價值，但其並不適合所有人。在這個意義上，我既不贊同社會民主黨，也不認同傳統的社會主義。

許多人可能認為共產黨仍然正視社會主義，我們能將這個黨轉回原先的傳統。這是不可能的，因為黨內有太多特殊利益集團。當共產黨不再代表人民，我們需要自發性的工農組織，以及其他社會組織，在公共領域內製定政策時為人民發聲。我稱之為“後政黨”，我們所有的政策不僅需要由黨來制定，還需要人民代表大會來代表廣泛的利益。

你是否認為我們能看到一個“後政黨”體系的出現？

施密特：你們已經處於後共產主義體系之中了，但是你們尚未進入一個新時代。我懷疑你們是否還會保持一黨執政。將來説不準有什麼大事兒。在中國歷史上經歷許多重大的變化，我確信在未來也同樣也會經歷。

汪暉：你對現代社會的媒介力量如何評價？

施密特：當下的媒介極具權勢。我認為在議會民主制國家，媒介正侵蝕着民主制度的根基，尤其是自互聯網時代到來，媒體的影響力劇增，印刷書籍和印刷媒介的重要性式微。如果一個人能用谷歌搜索，還讀什麼老子、孔子？

汪暉：媒體的發展似乎使政治更加複雜。在互聯網上做什麼都會得到即時回應，這對中國的官員們來説也是一個巨大挑戰。這是個悖論，一方面微博上的強烈抗議讓中國政府看上去似乎冥頑不化，反應遲鈍。但另一方面，有時政府為了取悦民意又做出太多妥協，其結果未必好。

施密特：在中國，政府也要取悦民意。

汪暉：現今尤甚。

（翻頁請看英文原文）

  Helmut Schmidt: ‘I Would Not Sell Democracy To The Chinese’ -- Part I

Guancha.cn | by Wang Hui

Recently, the Chinese scholar Wang Hui sat down for a conversation with Helmut Schmidt, Germany’s elder statesman, in Hamburg.

Until 2007, Wang Hui was editor of the influential journal, Dushu, and is author of the seminal four-volume study, “The Rise of Modern Chinese Thought.” Helmut Schmidt, 95, was chancellor of Germany from 1974-1982 and visited China several times to meet Mao and Deng Xiaoping.

A version of this conversation appeared in Chinese in Guancha.cn

PART I: “I Would Not Sell Democracy to the Chinese”

WANG HUI: I need your wisdom on this issue. The debate over political reform is raging not only among intellectuals, but within the Communist Party itself. Everybody knows that political reform is needed. But how can it be carried out? What will be your suggestion for the political reform in China?

HELMUT SCHMIDT: (Joking) Thank God I am not in the place of Xi Jinping! There are too many problems at the same time. On the one hand I think it is astonishing and encouraging that you are required to change the leadership every 10 years and that you replace the elder leaders by younger ones. Nobody stays in power any more as long as Mao of Deng.

On the other hand as a foreigner, as the European as I am, I really have no in depth knowledge of Xi Jinping, and I don’t know what kind of people he has surrounded himself with.

WANG: What about the political party system?

SCHMIDT: I think that Deng was not clear enough when he said “yes we want a democratic nation, but with Chinese characteristics.” What that meant was unclear. What are the Chinese characteristics? I think you have to find your own way, and you are already an important factor of the world’s economy whether you like it or not.

It is a fact and you cannot stop your reform and opening up which relies for now by growing through exporting. If you try, you will create tens of millions of unemployed people. What you are doing wrong to the world’s economy with your trade surplus is only a little less wrong than the Germans. We have a greater surplus in our balance of trade than you. It’s ridiculous.

WANG: You said that it is very difficult for Xi Jinping because he is in a very complicated situation with so much that needs to be done at the same time. Some people in China have different views about political reform.

Some want to copy the Western multi-party system. Others argue that China needs democracy at the local level and some mechanism on the top level, but not necessarily elections at the national level. What is your suggestion in this respect?

SCHMIDT: Democracy is not the end point of mankind. There may be developments in many different directions in the coming centuries. Democracy has only existed for about 200 years. It started out with the American Declaration of Independence. The Americans got their ideas from the Europeans, in the main from the French, the Dutch and the British.

But democracy has a number of serious failures. For instance, you have to be elected every four years and you have to be re-elected after the next four years. So you try to tell the people what they would like to hear. The multi-party system is not the crown of progress, but it is the best we have right now. I would fight for maintaining it, but I would not sell it to the Chinese.

The British have sold it to the Indians and to the Pakistanis and the Dutch tried to sell it to the Indonesians. Democracy is not really working in India. I would not tell the Egyptians to introduce democracy; nor would I pitch it to the other Muslim countries like Malaysia, Iran and Pakistan. It is a Western invention. It was not invented by Confucius. It was invented by Montesquieu and by other Frenchmen. It was invented by John Locke and by the Dutch people.

WANG: Very few Western leaders talk about these issues like you do.

SCHMIDT: That does not necessarily mean that I am wrong.

The critical thing about Western democracy is the fact that you usually have a transition of power without bloodshed. That is an enormous advantage. But still democracy as we know it was only invented recently in the West, historical speaking. It did not really work in ancient Rome. It functioned for less than 200 years in ancient Athens. And then it had not functioned in any other country in the world until the Americans declared independence from the British monarchy.

Even in the time of Pericles in ancient Athens you had slaves. You had to be a citizen of Athens, and for every citizen of Athens there were at least three people who did not have the right to vote and at least one third were slaves.

Even in America, slavery was officially accepted until the middle of the 19th century. The Civil War in the American democracy was about slavery. Don’t forget that. And by the middle of this century you will see that the Mexicans and their children and the Afro-Americans and their children will together be one half of the American electorate. And whoever is president will have to play to the ears of these electors. America will change from a world power into something different. China will also change. And whether you become a democracy or not remains to be seen. My feeling is that you will not become a democracy.

WANG: In both the multiparty system in the West and the system of multiparty cooperation under one party rule in China, the representative-ness of political parties have diminished. Most parties today look like state-parties where the spoils are doled out tot he organized special interests that have captured the state. Parties are no longer politial organizations representing various social forces.

The Chinese Communist Party, for instance, is no longer the Communist Party in its 20th century sense. It is a state party in the sense that it is almost completely integrated into the framework of the state, and functions as such, rather than as a political organization. And this has occurred across the world. What we witness is the political system detaching itself from society.

We need to think of a different kind of politics. Democracy is a very positive value, but it is not for everybody. In this sense, I do not align myself with liberal democrats, nor traditional socialism.

Many might believe that the Communist Party still recognizes socialism as positive, and that we can convert the Party back to its earlier tradition. This is impossible, because there are so many different interest groups within the Party. When the Party is no longer the representative of the people, we need autonomous organizations of workers and peasants and other social organizations to express their voice in policy-making in the public sphere. I call these “post-parties.” And we need all policy to be made not only by the Party, but also by the Congress that represents broader interests.

Do you think that we may see the emergence of a “post party” system?

SCHMIDT: You are certainly in a post-communist system but you have not entered the new era. I also doubt that you will remain a one party system either. A great event can always happen. In the history of China you endured many enormous changes and I’m sure you will in the future as well.

WANG: What is your comment on the power of the media in the contemporary world?

SCHMIDT: Right now, they are too powerful. I believe in the representative type of democracy. The media are undermining that type of democracy. Particularly since the computerization of the world, the impact of media has grown enormously. The printed books and the printed media have become less important. Why should somebody read Laozi or Confucius if he can Google?

WANG: Developments in the media seem to have made politics more difficult. With the internet you get the instant reaction to what you did. This is also a big challenge for Chinese politicians. There is a paradox. On the one hand, because of the outcry on Weibo the Chinese government may sound stubborn and unresponsive. But sometimes the government has made too many compromises, the results of which were not necessarily good, in order to please public opinion.

SCHMIDT: Also in China, the government needs to please the people.

WANG: Now very much so.