中國模式的魅力_風聞

【文/觀察者網風聞社區 張維為】

【題記：2018年中非合作論壇峯會即將在北京召開，這使我想起了12年前的首屆中非峯會。那是2006年11月4～5日，中非合作論壇北京峯會隆重舉行，非洲35位國家元首、6位政府首腦、1位副總統、6位高級代表以及非盟委員會主席均悉數出席。整個西方世界為之震驚，因為來中國參加峯會的非洲領導人居然超過參加非洲統一組織峯會的領導人，於是對中國的各種質疑聲四起，幾乎不亞於今天西方對中非關係的無端指責。

有感於此，在2006年中非峯會舉行前夕，我在《紐約時報》國際版（時稱《國際先驅論壇報》）發表了一篇後來被廣為引用的文章，題為《中國模式的魅力》，文章概述了中國模式的主要特點，比較了中美兩種模式對非洲乃至整個非西方世界的吸引力，指出兩種模式的吸引力出現了此長彼消的趨勢，而且這種趨勢幾乎不可扭轉。這大概也是中國學者最早發表在西方主流媒體的關於中國模式的文章之一。12年時間不算長也不算短，但文章提出的觀點和預測證明都是準確的。這也是我對做學問的要求：經得起實踐的檢驗，經得起歷史的檢驗。謹借《觀察者網》一角發表此文，並預祝2018中非峯會取得會圓滿成功！】

許多參加中非首腦會議的非洲領導人並不只是被援助和貿易的機會所吸引，他們也是為中國的發展模式所吸引。

他們知道僅僅在三十年前，中國和馬拉維一樣貧窮。而今天的馬拉維還是世界上最貧窮的國家之一，但中國的經濟規模已經擴大了九倍。確實，中國的發展模式在許多方面挑戰了西方在消除貧困、實現良政善治方面的主流觀點。中國模式的主要特點是：

一、 以民為本。中國自1978年以來奉行了一個高度務實的現代化戰略，集中精力滿足人民最迫切的需求。中國改革的設計師鄧小平主張中國只能“實事求是”，而不是信奉任何教條。所有改革都必須考慮地方的具體情況，並給人民帶來實實在在的利益。

8月31日，2018年中非合作論壇北京峯會新聞中心舉行首場新聞發佈會

二 、不斷的試驗。所有的變革都首先在小範圍內進行試點，成功了再推廣到其它地方。

三 、漸進改革，而非激進革命。中國拒絕了“休克療法”。中國的辦法是利用現有不完善的體制來運作，並在這個過程中，逐步改革這個體制本身，使之轉化，為現代化服務。

四、 一個致力於發展的政府。中國的變革是由一個強有力的、致力於發展的政府所領導的。這個政府有能力凝聚全民對於實現現代化的共識，保證政治穩定和宏觀經濟的穩定，並在這種環境中推進大規模的國內改革。

五、 有選擇的學習。中國保持了自己“有選擇的文化借鑑”之傳統，其借鑑的東西包括了美國新自由主義模式中的一部分內容，如市場的作用、企業家精神、全球化和國際貿易。把中國模式簡單地描述為“北京共識”對抗“華盛頓共識”是不夠準確的。中國經驗的真正獨特之處是：中國捍衞了自己制定政策的空間，由自己來決定是否借鑑和借鑑什麼。

六、 正確的優先順序。中國1978年之後的變化大致展現了一個清晰的格局：改革的順序是先易後難；先農村改革，後城市改革；先沿海後內地；先經濟後政治。這種做法的好處是，第一階段的經驗為第二階段的改革創造了條件。

在過去的25年裏，本人走訪了100多個國家，其中大部分是發展中國家，包括18個非洲國家。我的結論是中國模式並非完美無缺，但是在消除貧困、幫助窮人與弱者方面，比美國模式要有效得多。美國模式包括國際貨幣基金組織在黑非洲實行的“結構調整方案”以及在俄羅斯推動的“休克療法”。

美國模式的特點是意識形態掛帥，重點放在推行大規模的激進的民主化，而很少顧及一個地方的具體情況。這個模式把黑非洲和不甚發達的地方看成是西方體制可以自然生根的社會。它在社會安全網建立之前就實行自由化；在宏觀管理制度形成之前就實現私有化；在寬容的政治文化和法治社會形成之前就推行民主化。其最後結果往往令人沮喪，甚至是災難性的。

對大多數發展中國家來説，他們的頭等任務是消除貧困，而貧困則是造成衝突和各種形式極端主義的根源。他們需要的一般不是一個自由主義的民主政府，而是一個能夠消除貧困，提供基本服務和安全的好政府。

此外，自由主義民主政府的先決條件，如法治、相當規模的中產階級、受過良好教育的人民、寬容的政治文化，在大多數貧窮的國家都不具備。強行在這些國家推行條件不成熟的民主化往往導致Fareed Zakaria所説的“非自由主義的民主”，甚至更糟糕，導致種族和宗派的衝突。

只要美國模式仍然不能產生它所希望的結果，正如其在海地、菲律賓、伊拉克的失敗所顯示的那樣，那麼中國模式對世界窮國的吸引力只會進一步增加。

我清楚地記得1985年9月鄧小平對加納元首傑裏•羅林斯説了這樣一段話：“請不要照搬我們的模式。如果説我們有什麼經驗的話，那就是按照自己的國情制定政策。”也許態度決定了一切。大家認為中國謙虛，美國傲慢。中國以自己的榜樣來領導，而美國則以訓斥、制裁、乃至導彈來領導。

1985年9月18日，鄧小平會見加納國家元首、臨時全國保衞委員會主席傑裏·約翰·羅林斯

但是説到底，關鍵的問題是要找到最好的辦法來對付人類面臨的諸多挑戰。中國模式並非十全十美，但它已經豐富了整個世界在這個問題上的政治探索和智慧，從而也增加了可供選擇的政策。

（原載2006年11月2日《紐約時報》國際版，翻頁為英文版）

The allure of the Chinese model

Wei-Wei Zhang

Many of the African leaders coming here for the Chinese-African summit meeting are attracted not only by opportunities for aid and trade, but also by the Chinese model of development.

They know that only three decades ago, China was as poor as Malawi. But while the latter remains among the world’s poorest, China’s economy has expanded nine-fold. Indeed, the Chinese model has in many ways challenged the conventional wisdom in the West on how to fight poverty and ensure good governance. Its key features are:

People matter. Since 1978, China has pursued a down-to-earth strategy for modernization, and has focused on meeting the most pressing needs of the people. The architect of China’s reform, Deng Xiaoping, argued that China could only “seek truth from facts,” not from dogmas, and all reforms must take account of local conditions and deliver tangible benefits.

Constant experimentation. All changes in China first go through a process of trial and error on a small scale, and only when they are shown to work are they are applied elsewhere.

Gradual reform, not big bang. China rejected “shock therapy” and worked through the existing, imperfect institutions while gradually reforming them and reorienting them to serve modernization.

A developmental state. China’s change has been led by a strong and pro-development state that is capable of shaping national consensus on modernization and ensuring overall political and macroeconomic stability in which to pursue wide-ranging domestic reforms.

Selective learning. China has retained its long tradition of “selective cultural borrowing” - including from the neoliberal American model, and especially its emphasis on the role of the market, entrepreneurship, globalization and international trade. It is inaccurate to describe the Chinese model as the “Beijing consensus” versus the “Washington consensus.” What makes the Chinese experience unique is that Beijing has safeguarded its own policy space as to when, where and how to adopt foreign ideas.

Correct sequencing and priorities. China’s post- 1978 change has had a clear pattern: easy reforms first, difficult ones second; rural reforms first, urban ones second; changes in coastal areas first, inland second; economic reforms first, political ones second. The advantage is that the experiences gained in the first stage create conditions for the next stage.

Over the past 25 years, I’ve traveled to more than 100 countries, most of them developing countries, including 18 in Africa. I have concluded that in terms of eradicating poverty and helping the poor and the marginalized, the Chinese model, however imperfect, has worked far more effectively than what can be called the American model, as represented by the IMF-designed Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) for sub-Saharan Africa and the “shock therapy” for Russia.

The American model is largely ideology driven, with a focus on mass democratization. With little regard to local conditions, it treats sub-Saharan Africa or other less developed countries as mature societies in which Western institutions will automatically take root. It imposed liberalization before safety nets were set up; privatization before regulatory frameworks were put in place, and democratization before a culture of political tolerance and rule of law was established. The end result has often been discouraging or even devastating.

The paramount task for most developing countries is how to eradicate poverty, a root cause of conflicts and various forms of extremism. What they usually need is not a liberal democratic government, but a good government capable of fighting poverty and delivering basic services and basic security.

Furthermore, conditions for a liberal democratic government - rule of law, a sizable middle class, a well-educated population, a culture of political tolerance - are simply absent in most poor countries. Enforcing premature democratization on them often leads to what Fareed Zakaria has called “illiberal democracies,” or worse, ethnic and sectarian conflicts.

So long as the American model remains unable to deliver the desired outcome, as shown so clearly in failures from Haiti to the Philippines to Iraq, the Chinese model will become more appealing to the world’s poor.

I well remember Deng telling the visiting president of Ghana, Jerry Rawlings, in September 1985: “Please don’t copy our model. If there is any experience on our part, it is to formulate policies in light of one’s own national conditions.”

Perhaps attitude makes all the difference. China is viewed by others as modest, America as arrogant; China leads by example, America by lectures and sanctions, if not missiles.

At the end of the day, what matters most is finding the best ways to tackle the many challenges facing mankind. The Chinese model, however imperfect, has enriched the world’s political discourse and wisdom and hence expanded the policy options.

International Herald Tribune / New York Times

2 November 2006