 任何西方民主都是建在侵占別國資原的基礎上的. - 美國老華僑 04/07/14 (85) |
| 军事论坛 | 时事论坛 | 汽车论坛 | 摄影论坛 |
| 股票论坛 | 游戏论坛 | 音乐论坛 | |
| 万维读者网>世界时事论坛>帖子 |
| 《华盛顿邮报》:美式民主在走向灭绝吗？ |
| 送交者: 地富反坏 2014-04-06 02:52:59 于 [世界时事论坛] |
| 美式民主在走向灭绝吗？ 2014-04-03 22:10:14 多维[博][客] 岚风拂网 牛津大学退休教授Stein Ringen在民主的议题上颇有著述，他在2013年发布了新书《魔鬼之国：民主领导与服从问题》。而面对美国政府因为预算党争停摆，英国政府表现拙 劣，Ringen意识到政府治理体系效率低下与崩坏、搞不好发展，可能会让民主制度被历史湮灭。3月29日，Stein Ringen在《华盛顿邮报》上发表了他的文章《美式民主正在走向灭绝吗》。 观察者网翻译全文如下： 在政府失效的表象背后，我们应思考，是否民主本身也正在腐坏？ 两千多年前，古希腊人史无前例地发明出一种让市民自我统治的政府形式。这种原始的宪政在雅典产生了奇迹般的效果：城邦的财富和规模不断扩张；成功抵御了波 斯的进犯；成为当时西方世界认知范围内的头号强国；并给后世留下了光照千古的建筑、哲学、艺术遗产。然而，一旦特权、腐败和劣政的种子生根发芽，仅仅 250年后，古典民主便在雅典“礼崩乐坏”了。 两千年后，民主制度——确切来说是代议制民主——在美国宪法中迎来了重生。在美式民主制度下，政府必须获得大众普遍的同意方具备合法性，这样的设计闪烁着 天才的智慧。逐渐，美利坚合众国在经济、文化、军事等各方面都成为了全世界首屈一指的大国、强国。在欧洲，民主制度取代了威权的君主制度；驱逐了法西斯主 义和共产主义独裁政权。最近数十年，民主制度在全世界广为传播，使专制政府成为了全球政治体制中的少数派。 如果将美式民主看作民主制度的第二次大实验的话，它已经持续了将近250年，取得的成就不亚于古希腊的首次尝试。然而，雅典最终衰亡的经验告诉我们，成败 无常。民主制度是一种必须受到精心呵护的政治制度，“无心插柳柳成荫”在这里绝不适用。民主制度的缔造者与践行者们必须付出长期的决心与恒心，否则它最终 仍是一触即溃的沙上楼阁。英美两国本应是民主的中坚力量，然而由于缺少领导和培育，民主制度正在这里走向崩坏。一旦全球民主的灯塔在英美熄灭，就不要指望 民主的火种还能在其他国家得以留存。 政府仅仅做到程序民主是不够的；如果交不出令人满意的政绩答卷，它们便将被历史湮没。以英国为例，政府的功效越来越低下。在宪法学者安东尼•金眼中，英国 用了还不到30年时间，便从“有序”滑向了“混乱”。英国在新工党治下的十年中，反复验证了这一命题。1997年新工党政府上台伊始，本欲扭转撒切尔主义 带来的不平等现象。当时，议会给予了新工党任何民主政府都梦寐以求的鼎力支持，英国经济在上个十年中打下了良好的基础，但看似胜券在握的政府，最终仍然输 给了英国低劣的治理体系。新工党政府没有兑现任何承诺，留下了一个较保守党治下更不平等的英国社会。 之后一届政府，一个中间偏右的执政联盟，已经证明了自己同样无能。它本应修复经济危机给英国造成的损害，却不但对造成危机的根源——垄断性金融服务业—— 无所作为，反而为保护富人的利益，在紧缩政策的外衣下勒紧穷人的裤腰带。英国两届政府失败的原因并非主观上玩忽职守，而是他们都无法用政治力量撼动庞大的 经济既得利益集团。 与此同时，美国民主制度中存在的痼疾，使美国的政治健康状况比看上去更加虚弱。三权分立制度的设计初衷是通过政府权力间彼此制衡，最终更好的为公众服务。 但今天，权力互相牵制形成了僵局，整个国家得不到亟需的良好治理。任何一个旁观者都会轻易而惊愕地发现，美国的“社会不平等”与“政府不作为”是那样的密 不可分。原本赋予宪政体系的权力被诸如政治行动委员会、智囊团、媒体、游说团体等组织榨取、篡夺。 在当今这个政治无比昂贵的时代，候选人与赞助者间存在依靠关系，没有后者真金白银的赞助，前者就不可能在无穷无尽的选战中杀出一条血路。一旦金钱逾越出市 场的边界，进入本不应参与的政治领域，谁控制了金钱，谁就能够决定最终上台的哪名候选人。成功上台的政客又利用手中的权力回馈自己的赞助者。富人们既是选 民又是政客的施主，他们手中有两套工具操纵政治；而普通百姓手中，仅有一张在政治通胀中不断贬值的选票。外界存在一种误会，认为是政客追逐铜臭；其实在美 国，是金主追逐候选人。 在古希腊，当富人成为巨富，并拒绝遵守规则、破坏政府体制时，雅典民主崩溃的丧钟也就敲响了。今日之英美，也已到了岌岌可危的临界点。 近一个世纪前，资本主义民主曾经面临与今日类似的巨大危机，美国最高法院大法官路易斯•布兰代斯曾警告道：“我们要么选择民主，要么任凭财富集中在少数人 手中，但这两点是无法共存的。”民主制度之所以挺过了上世纪的大萧条，原因有二：单单是社会不平等，还不足以毁灭民主制度，不平等加上金钱的越界，才对民 主构成致命威胁；此外，当时的民主制度尚具有从危机中学习的能力——罗斯福的新政通过1933年的银行法，降低了经济自由放任的程度，并建立了社会保障体 系，向危机中的平民百姓提供救助。 雅典留给后世的教训是：成功让人自满。人们——尤其是那些享有特权的人们——在成功后往往忽视民主，不再关心国计民生。如今，距离经济危机爆发已过去了六 年，种种迹象显示，英美等民主楷模国家内部的特权人群失去了关心民生的能力；民主制度也失去了学习能力。英美政府始终未能将这场危机的始作俑者——失控的 金融服务业纳入管控体系。不平等现象已经从经济领域蔓延到政治领域，而民主政府却全然没有权力和能力去应对。布兰代斯可谓一语成谶。 Is American Democracy Headed to Extinction? Behind dysfunctional government, is democracy itself in decay? It took only 250 years for democracy to disintegrate in ancient Athens. A wholly new form of government was invented there in which the people ruled themselves. That constitution proved marvelously effective. Athens grew in wealth and capacity, fought off the Persian challenge, established itself as the leading power in the known world and produced treasures of architecture, philosophy and art that bedazzle to this day. But when privilege, corruption and mismanagement took hold, the lights went out. It would be 2,000 years before democracy was reinvented in the U.S. Constitution, now as representative democracy. Again, government by popular consent proved ingenious. The United States grew into the world’s leading power — economically, culturally and militarily. In Europe, democracies overtook authoritarian monarchies and fascist and communist dictatorships. In recent decades, democracy’s spread has made the remaining autocracies a minority. The second democratic experiment is approaching 250 years. It has been as successful as the first. But the lesson from Athens is that success does not breed success. Democracy is not the default. It is a form of government that must be created with determination and that will disintegrate unless nurtured. In the United States and Britain, democracy is disintegrating when it should be nurtured by leadership. If the lights go out in the model democracies, they will not stay on elsewhere. It’s not enough for governments to simply be democratic; they must deliver or decay. In Britain, government is increasingly ineffectual. The constitutional scholar Anthony King has described it as declining from “order” to “mess” in less than 30 years. During 10 years of New Labor rule, that proposition was tested and confirmed. In 1997 a new government was voted in with a mandate and determination to turn the tide on Thatcherite inequality. It was given all the parliamentary power a democratic government could dream of and benefited from 10 years of steady economic growth. But a strong government was defeated by a weak system of governance. It delivered nothing of what it intended and left Britain more unequal than where the previous regime had left off. The next government, a center-right coalition, has proved itself equally unable. It was supposed to repair damage from the economic crisis but has responded with inaction on the causes of crisis, in a monopolistic financial-services sector, and with a brand of austerity that protects the privileged at the expense of the poor. Again, what has transpired is inability rather than ill will. Both these governments came up against concentrations of economic power that have become politically unmanageable. Meanwhile, the health of the U.S. system is even worse than it looks. The three branches of government are designed to deliver through checks and balances. But balance has become gridlock, and the United States is not getting the governance it needs. Here, the link between inequality and inability is on sharp display. Power has been sucked out of the constitutional system and usurped by actors such as PACs, think tanks, media and lobbying organizations. In the age of mega-expensive politics, candidates depend on sponsors to fund permanent campaigns. When money is allowed to transgress from markets, where it belongs, to politics, where it has no business, those who control it gain power to decide who the successful candidates will be — those they wish to fund — and what they can decide once they are in office. Rich supporters get two swings at influencing politics, one as voters and one as donors. Others have only the vote, a power that diminishes as political inflation deflates its value. It is a misunderstanding to think that candidates chase money. It is money that chases candidates. In Athens, democracy disintegrated when the rich grew super-rich, refused to play by the rules and undermined the established system of government. That is the point that the United States and Britain have reached. Nearly a century ago, when capitalist democracy was in a crisis not unlike the present one, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis warned: “We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” Democracy weathered that storm for two reasons: It is not inequality as such that destroys democracy but the more recent combination of inequality and transgression. Furthermore, democracy was then able to learn from crisis. The New Deal tempered economic free-for-all, primarily through the 1933 Banking Act, and gave the smallfolk new social securities. The lesson from Athens is that success breeds complacency. People, notably those in privilege, stopped caring, and democracy was neglected. Six years after the global economic crisis, the signs from the model democracies are that those in privilege are unable to care and that our systems are unable to learn. The crisis started in out-of-control financial services industries in the United States and Britain, but control has not been reasserted. Economic inequality has followed through to political inequality, and democratic government is bereft of power and capacity. Brandeis was not wrong; he was ahead of his time. |
|
0.00%(0)
0.00%(0)
0.00%(0)
|
当前新闻共有1条评论 |
|
|
| |
|
|
 |
| 广告：webads@creaders.net | ||||||||
| 电话：604-438-6008,604-438-6080 | ||||||||
| 投稿：webeditor@creaders.net | ||||||||
|
| ||||||||