Op-Ed Contributor
Why China’s Political Model Is Superior
By ERIC X. LI
Published: February 16, 2012

Recommend
Twitter
Linkedin
Sign In to E-Mail
Print
Reprints
Share

¶ Shanghai

¶ THIS week the Obama administration is playing host to Xi Jinping, China’s vice president and heir apparent. The world’s most powerful electoral democracy and its largest one-party state are meeting at a time of political transition for both.

¶ Many have characterized the competition between these two giants as a clash between democracy and authoritarianism. But this is false. America and China view their political systems in fundamentally different ways: whereas America sees democratic government as an end in itself, China sees its current form of government, or any political system for that matter, merely as a means to achieving larger national ends.

¶ In the history of human governance, spanning thousands of years, there have been two major experiments in democracy. The first was Athens, which lasted a century and a half; the second is the modern West. If one defines democracy as one citizen one vote, American democracy is only 92 years old. In practice it is only 47 years old, if one begins counting after the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — far more ephemeral than all but a handful of China’s dynasties.

¶ Why, then, do so many boldly claim they have discovered the ideal political system for all mankind and that its success is forever assured?

¶ The answer lies in the source of the current democratic experiment. It began with the European Enlightenment. Two fundamental ideas were at its core: the individual is rational, and the individual is endowed with inalienable rights. These two beliefs formed the basis of a secular faith in modernity, of which the ultimate political manifestation is democracy.

¶ In its early days, democratic ideas in political governance facilitated the industrial revolution and ushered in a period of unprecedented economic prosperity and military power in the Western world. Yet at the very beginning, some of those who led this drive were aware of the fatal flaw embedded in this experiment and sought to contain it.

¶ The American Federalists made it clear they were establishing a republic, not a democracy, and designed myriad means to constrain the popular will. But as in any religion, faith would prove stronger than rules.

¶ The political franchise expanded, resulting in a greater number of people participating in more and more decisions. As they say in America, “California is the future.” And the future means endless referendums, paralysis and insolvency.

¶ In Athens, ever-increasing popular participation in politics led to rule by demagogy. And in today’s America, money is now the great enabler of demagogy. As the Nobel-winning economist A. Michael Spence has put it, America has gone from “one propertied man, one vote; to one man, one vote; to one person, one vote; trending to one dollar, one vote.” By any measure, the United States is a constitutional republic in name only. Elected representatives have no minds of their own and respond only to the whims of public opinion as they seek re-election; special interests manipulate the people into voting for ever-lower taxes and higher government spending, sometimes even supporting self-destructive wars.

¶ The West’s current competition with China is therefore not a face-off between democracy and authoritarianism, but rather the clash of two fundamentally different political outlooks. The modern West sees democracy and human rights as the pinnacle of human development. It is a belief premised on an absolute faith.

¶ China is on a different path. Its leaders are prepared to allow greater popular participation in political decisions if and when it is conducive to economic development and favorable to the country’s national interests, as they have done in the past 10 years.

¶ However, China’s leaders would not hesitate to curtail those freedoms if the conditions and the needs of the nation changed. The 1980s were a time of expanding popular participation in the country’s politics that helped loosen the ideological shackles of the destructive Cultural Revolution. But it went too far and led to a vast rebellion at Tiananmen Square.

¶ That uprising was decisively put down on June 4, 1989. The Chinese nation paid a heavy price for that violent event, but the alternatives would have been far worse.

¶ The resulting stability ushered in a generation of growth and prosperity that propelled China’s economy to its position as the second largest in the world.

¶ The fundamental difference between Washington’s view and Beijing’s is whether political rights are considered God-given and therefore absolute or whether they should be seen as privileges to be negotiated based on the needs and conditions of the nation.

¶ The West seems incapable of becoming less democratic even when its survival may depend on such a shift. In this sense, America today is similar to the old Soviet Union, which also viewed its political system as the ultimate end.

¶ History does not bode well for the American way. Indeed, faith-based ideological hubris may soon drive democracy over the cliff.

¶Eric X. Li is a venture capitalist.

《纽约时报》刊文：为什么中国的政治模式是优越的？
　　【美国《纽约时报》网站2月16日文章】题：为什么中国的政治模式是优越的（作者 上海成为基金创始人兼合伙人李世默）

　　许多人都把中美两个大国之间的竞争说成是民主和专制之间的冲突。但这是错误的。美国和中国以根本不同的方式看待自己的政治制度：美国认为民主政府本身就是目的，而中国则认为，其目前的政府形式，或任何与此有关的政治制度，仅仅是一种实现更大的国家目标的手段而已。

　　在跨越几千年由人类治理的历史上，有过两次民主的重要试验。首先是雅典，历时一个半世纪；第二是现代西方。若把民主定义为每个公民一票，则美国的民主只有92岁。在实践中，如果从1965年通过的投票权法案算起的话它只有47岁，与中国的大多数朝代相比，要短暂得多。

　　那么，为什么有这么多人大胆地宣称，他们已经为全人类发现了理想的政治制度，它的成功永远得到了保障？

　　答案就在当前的民主试验的源头。它以欧洲的启蒙运动为开端。处于其核心的是两个基本的理念：个人是理性的，以及个人被赋予不可剥夺的权利。这两个信念为现代世俗信仰奠定了基础。而这种信仰的最终政治表现是民主。

　　在其初期，政治治理的民主思想促进了工业革命，迎来了西方世界空前的经济繁荣和军事强大时期。然而，就在开始的时候，正是这场运动领导者中的一些人意识到了在这个试验中嵌入的致命缺陷，并试图加以遏制。

　　美国联邦制拥护者阐明，他们要建立的是一个共和国，而不是一个民主国家，并设计了种种手段来限制民意。但是，就像在任何宗教中一样，信仰被证明超越了规则。

　　公民权范围的扩大导致越来越多的人参与越来越多的决策。正如美国人所说：“加州就是未来。”而这种未来就意味着无尽的公投、瘫痪和破产。

　　在古希腊雅典，不断提高的民众参政程度导致凭借煽动进行统治。在今天的美国，钱是蛊惑人心的伟大推动者。正如诺贝尔奖得主、经济学家迈克尔·斯彭斯所说，美国已经从“每个有产者一票、每个男人一票、每人一票向一美元一票发展”。用任何标准来衡量，美国都是一个名存实亡的宪法共和国。选出的代表没有自己的思想，在寻求当选连任时，他们表现出响应舆论的心血来潮。在特殊利益集团的操纵下，人们投票支持不断降低税收和不断增加政府开支，有时甚至是支持带来自我毁灭的战争。

　　因此，西方与中国目前的竞争并不是民主和专制的对峙，而是两种根本不同的政治观的冲突。现代西方把民主和人权视为人类发展的顶峰。这种信念以一种绝对信仰为前提。

　　中国所走的道略则不同。如果让民众更多地参与政治决策对经济发展和中国的国家利益有利，中国领导人就准备这样做，就像他们在过去10年中所做的那样。

　　稳定开创了中国经济增长和繁荣的世代，从而推动中国获得了世界第二大经济体的地位。

　　华盛顿和北京之间看法的根本区别在于，究竟政治权利是上帝赐予的，因此是绝对的呢，还是应被视为可以根据国家的需要和国情来加以谈判的特权。

　　西方似乎越来越无力减少民主，甚至在其生存可能就取决于这种转变的时候也是如此。从这个意义上讲，今天的美国类似于昔日的苏联，因为当年，苏联也认为自己的政治制度就是最终目的。

　　历史对美国的道路来说预兆不祥。事实上，基于信仰的思想傲慢可能很快就会让民主制度坠下悬崖。

...
...
...