張維為：中國成功緣於拒絕市場和民主原教旨主義

【美國《赫芬頓郵報》新聞評論網站《世界郵報》2014年5月5日刊登觀察者網供稿，復旦大學中國發展模式研究中心主任、春秋發展戰略研究院研究員張維為教授文章。】

中國在不久的將來可能超越美國成為世界最大經濟體，當我們所有人都能對此進行爭辯時，世界銀行國際比較項目（ICP）的這一最新消息必將點燃一輪吸引無數人的新討論：西方的衰落與中國的崛起。

西方國家對自身衰落已多有提及。這些國家，尤其是美國，幾十年來都在向世界推銷他們的模式。其中，他們傾銷的兩樣重要“物品”——市場原教旨主義和民主原教旨主義——最近似乎失去了吸引力。從金融角度來説，許多西方國家實際上已經破產。

“顏色革命”因烏克蘭亂局而褪色的同時，埃及暴亂也由“阿拉伯之春”轉入“阿拉伯之冬”。《經濟學人》最近的一篇封面文章《西方民主病在哪兒？》承認民主已經沒有了推動力。作者認為，兩個主要的原因“一是2007-08年的金融危機，二是中國的崛起”。

西方有識之士在重新檢驗他們的模式時，再也不能忽略中國了。西班牙前首相費利佩•岡薩雷斯（Felipe Gonzalez）也許敏鋭地捕捉到了這個新現實。2012年訪華後，岡薩雷斯表示，“每一次訪問中國，無論時隔多久，反映世界新局勢的歷史現象都會令人感到驚訝：中國以異乎尋常的速度崛起，而我們歐洲人找不到前進的新方向，在掙扎着不要沉沒。我們不知道如何阻止這一進程，更不用説逆轉了。”

然而，中國崛起在西方社會沒有得到恰如其分的分析。與西方世界形成鮮明對比，中國正以前所未有之勢崛起，不斷提升着13億人民的生活水平。那麼，中國的制勝之道究竟何在？其要訣在於，拒絕“市場原教旨主義”和“民主原教旨主義”的神話，尋找並堅持適合自身情況的發展道路。

市場原教旨主義相信，市場這隻“看不見的手”能夠解決所有經濟甚至社會問題。市場的信奉者不僅無視他們在非西方社會的諸多失敗經歷——從非洲的“結構調整”到俄羅斯的“休克療法”，這樣的盲信也把他們自己的後院引向了金融危機。

而中國在過去十幾年實行了社會主義市場經濟體制，將政府“看得見的手”與市場“看不見的手”相結合。這一尚不完美的模式還需改善，但它應該是對兩種方式最好的融合，並給中國帶來了令人震驚的成果。

《歷史的終結》一書作者弗朗西斯•福山（Francis Fukuyama）也同意，中國過去三十年的快速經濟發展顯示了中國模式的有效性。他承認，中國崛起已經對他的理論造成挑戰。自由民主制度或許不是歷史的終結。

民主原教旨主義者絕不允許偏離西方民主的方向。他們宣稱，一個國家的成功與否，取決於其是否採用了西方民主制度，尤其是多黨制和普選制。而這些信奉者忽視了一個事實，那就是，這種模式實際上把西方和非西方民主國家拖入了可怕的困境。被大量既得利益集團所綁架的西方民主，已經深陷泥沼，無法推行任何有意義的政治改革。

而對於非西方人士，西方的民主並非總能令其滿意。一個國家是由政治、經濟和社會等多方面維度組成的複雜有機體。西方民主可能改變了政治上某些表層的東西，但卻無法輕鬆改變這個有機體的其他維度。而任何社會的改變都需經歷一個緩慢而艱鉅的過程。“顏色革命”和“阿拉伯之春”説明了一切。

相較於西方民主，中國自己探索的民主道路更加成功。就在西方強調“形式”和“程序”的同時，中國卻把更多注意力放在了“實質”和“結果”上。就算正確的形式和程序的確能將一個國家引向成功的航道，但西方也已經把自己的模式變成了教條。與此形成對比的是，中國人則在大膽地探索自己的民主形式和程序，只要這種民主能照顧到“實質”和“結果”。換句話説，中國願意採用任何方法為人民謀取福利，而西方則堅持採用一種自認為優越的機制，不管它能給人民帶來何種結果。中國道路正在取得成效。

鄧小平認為，一種政治體制的質量（實質與結果）如何，取決於三個參照標準，一是政治局勢是否穩定，二是該體制是否推動了人民的團結、改善了他們的生活，三是該體制是否令生產力可持續。

如果我們以這三個標準來看“顏色革命”和“阿拉伯之春”所發生的國家，就會發現，所有國家在這三方面都表現欠佳。而西方大部分國家雖然目前政局穩定，但其中有不少國家在後兩個標準上正走向失敗。

隨着中國持續崛起，整個世界都在反思植根於西方模式的混亂與災難，尤其是“市場原教旨主義”和“民主原教旨主義”的荒謬。決定中國未來道路的是其獨特的文化傳統、歷史和民族環境，不是西方的教條。而中國在探索本國發展道路的過程中，已經證明了自己的成功。

英國歷史學家阿諾德•J•湯因比（Arnold J. Toynbee）很早以前就預測，中國有一天會吸收其他文明的力量，在新世紀為人類貢獻一個新的文明起點。

中國的確正走在湯因比所描述的道路上。“中國夢”將在此過程中成真——建立一個適度繁榮的社會，並實現國家的復興。而這對世界是一個巨大的貢獻。

（觀察者網張苗鳳、王璐菲/譯。翻頁請看英文原文）

  China’s Success Due to Rejecting Both Market and Democracy Fundamentalism

Posted: 05/05/2014 3:42 pm EDT Updated: 05/05/2014 3:59 pm

Zhang Weiwei, director of the Center for China Development Model Research at Fudan University and a senior research fellow at the Shanghai Chunqiu Institute for Developmental and Strategic Studies, is the author of “The China Wave: Rise of A Civilizational State” (World Century Publishing Corporation, 2012). This article is distributed by the Guancha Syndicate and its Chinese original was published in guancha.cn.

SHANGHAI -- While we can all debate the likelihood of China overtaking the U.S. as the world’s biggest economy in the near future, this latest prediction from the World Bank’s International Comparison Program will surely inflame further an ongoing discussion which has occupied the heart and mind of millions: The Decline of the West and the Rise of China.

The declining part is much more talked about in the West. The West, and the United States in particular, has been promoting its model to the rest of the world for decades. The two key things they’re selling -- market fundamentalism and democracy fundamentalism -- seem to be losing their appeal lately. Financially speaking, many Western countries are literally broke.

While the “Color Revolution” has faded with Ukraine’s turmoil, Egypt’s conflicts have also turned the “Arab Spring” into winter. The Economist, in a recent cover essay “What’s gone wrong with democracy?” admits that democracy has lost its forward momentum. The two main reasons, it says, are “the financial crisis of 2007-08 and the rise of China.”

Re-examining their own model, no sensible person in the West can afford to ignore China anymore. Felipe Gonzalez, former prime minister of Spain, perhaps captured this new reality best. After visiting China in 2012, he said “No visit to China, whatever the frequency, fails to cause a surprise as a historic phenomenon reflecting the new world situation. China has already emerged with unusual strength, while we -- the European Union -- fight to avoid sinking, without finding a new way forward. Set against an ascending process, that appears unstoppable, is a descending one -- a loss of relevance, which we are unable to stop, much less reverse.”

The rising part, however, is much less properly analyzed by the West. China, in sharp contrast to the Western world, has been rising in an unprecedented manner, elevating the living standard of most of its 1.3 billion people in no time. After all, what makes China tick? China’s success lies on rejecting the myths of “market fundamentalism” and “democracy fundamentalism” while exploring and sticking to a way that suits its own particular circumstances.

Market fundamentalists believe the market’s “invisible hand” could solve all the economic and even social problems. Not only do true believers pay no attention to their numerous failed experiments in non-western societies -- from “structural adjustments” in Africa to “shock therapy” in Russia, but their blind faith has also led to the financial crisis in their own backyard today.

In the past few decades, China, on the other hand, has adopted the “socialist market economy” in which the government’s “visible hand” and the market’s “invisible hand” are combined. While this model is far from perfect and needs further fine-tuning, it seems to bring together the best of two possible worlds and has achieved stunning results for China.

Francis Fukuyama, author of “The End of History,” concurs that the rapid economic growth in the past 30 years has shown the effectiveness of China’s model. He admits that China’s rise has posed a challenge to his theory. Liberal democracy might not be the end of history.

Democracy fundamentalists allow no deviation from Western-style democracy. The success of a nation, they claim, depends on whether it adopts Western-style democracy, especially multi-party system and universal suffrage, or not. True believers ignore the fact that this model, in practice, has dragged both Western and non-Western democracies into a dire predicament. Western democracies, having been hijacked by various vested interest groups, get too bogged down to launch any meaningful political reform.

For non-Western stomachs, Western-style democracy doesn’t always agree with them. A country is a complex organic entity with political, economic, and social dimensions. Western-style democracy may have altered something on the political surface but it can’t change the other dimensions easily. To bring real changes to any society is usually a slow and daunting process. The failure of “Color Revolution” and the emergence of “Arab Winter” have said it all.

Compared to Western-style democracy, China’s own search for a democratic path is more successful. While the West emphasizes “format” and “procedure,” China focuses more on “substance” and “result.” Assuming that a right format and procedure would set a country sailing down a winning course, the West has instead turned its model into a dogma. The Chinese, on the contrary, have undertaken a bold search for its own democratic format and procedure as long as the “substance” and “result” are taken care of. In other words, China adopts whatever means that can deliver goods to the people whereas the West uses a perceived good mechanism to produce whatever outcome it may bring. The Chinese way is gaining mileage.

Deng Xiaoping laid down three benchmarks in determining the quality (substance and result) of any political system. First, is the political situation stable? Second, is it promoting unity among the people and improving their living? Third, is rising productivity sustainable?

If we applied these three benchmarks to the countries which are involved in the “Color Revolution” and the “Arab Spring,” all of them would come out very poorly on all counts. While the vast majority of Western nations are still stable, many of of them are headed toward failure in the last two areas.

As China keeps rising, the whole world is reflecting on the chaos, and disasters derived from the Western model, particularly the absurdity of “market fundamentalism” and “democracy fundamentalism.” What determines China’s future path is its unique cultural tradition, history, and national circumstances, and not any Western dogma. In exploring for its own development, China has demonstrated its success.

British historian Arnold J. Toynbee predicted long ago that China might one day assimilate strengths from other civilizations and to provide a new cultural starting point for mankind in the new century.

China has indeed taken this journey described by Toynbee. It will stay on course to make the “Chinese dream” come true -- to build a moderately prosperous society and realize national rejuvenation. This, is no small contribution to the world.