 
字體：小 中 大 |
|
|
|
| 2014/04/07 01:13:51瀏覽601｜回應0｜推薦0 | |
| 美式民主在走向滅絕嗎？
2014-04-03 22:10:14 多維[博][客] 嵐風拂網 牛津大學退休教授Stein Ringen在民主的議題上頗有著述，他在2013年發布了新書《魔鬼之國：民主領導與服從問題》。而面對美國政府因為預算黨爭停擺，英國政府表現拙 劣，Ringen意識到政府治理體系效率低下與崩壞、搞不好發展，可能會讓民主制度被歷史湮滅。3月29日，Stein Ringen在《華盛頓郵報》上發表了他的文章《美式民主正在走向滅絕嗎》。 觀察者網翻譯全文如下： 在政府失效的表象背後，我們應思考，是否民主本身也正在腐壞？ 兩千多年前，古希臘人史無前例地發明出一種讓市民自我統治的政府形式。這種原始的憲政在雅典產生了奇跡般的效果：城邦的財富和規模不斷擴張；成功抵禦了波 斯的進犯；成為當時西方世界認知範圍內的頭號強國；並給後世留下了光照千古的建築、哲學、藝術遺產。然而，一旦特權、腐敗和劣政的種子生根發芽，僅僅 250年後，古典民主便在雅典“禮崩樂壞”了。 兩千年後，民主制度——確切來說是代議制民主——在美國憲法中迎來了重生。在美式民主制度下，政府必須獲得大眾普遍的同意方具備合法性，這樣的設計閃爍著 天才的智慧。逐漸，美利堅合眾國在經濟、文化、軍事等各方面都成為了全世界首屈一指的大國、強國。在歐洲，民主制度取代了威權的君主制度；驅逐了法西斯主 義和共產主義獨裁政權。最近數十年，民主制度在全世界廣為傳播，使專制政府成為了全球政治體制中的少數派。 如果將美式民主看作民主制度的第二次大實驗的話，它已經持續了將近250年，取得的成就不亞於古希臘的首次嘗試。然而，雅典最終衰亡的經驗告訴我們，成敗 無常。民主制度是一種必須受到精心呵護的政治制度，“無心插柳柳成蔭”在這裏絕不適用。民主制度的締造者與踐行者們必須付出長期的決心與恒心，否則它最終 仍是一觸即潰的沙上樓閣。英美兩國本應是民主的中堅力量，然而由於缺少領導和培育，民主制度正在這裏走向崩壞。一旦全球民主的燈塔在英美熄滅，就不要指望 民主的火種還能在其他國家得以留存。 政府僅僅做到程序民主是不夠的；如果交不出令人滿意的政績答卷，它們便將被歷史湮沒。以英國為例，政府的功效越來越低下。在憲法學者安東尼•金眼中，英國 用了還不到30年時間，便從“有序”滑向了“混亂”。英國在新工黨治下的十年中，反復驗證了這一命題。1997年新工黨政府上臺伊始，本欲扭轉撒切爾主義 帶來的不平等現象。當時，議會給予了新工黨任何民主政府都夢寐以求的鼎力支持，英國經濟在上個十年中打下了良好的基礎，但看似勝券在握的政府，最終仍然輸 給了英國低劣的治理體系。新工黨政府沒有兌現任何承諾，留下了一個較保守黨治下更不平等的英國社會。 之後一屆政府，一個中間偏右的執政聯盟，已經證明了自己同樣無能。它本應修復經濟危機給英國造成的損害，卻不但對造成危機的根源——壟斷性金融服務業—— 無所作為，反而為保護富人的利益，在緊縮政策的外衣下勒緊窮人的褲腰帶。英國兩屆政府失敗的原因並非主觀上玩忽職守，而是他們都無法用政治力量撼動龐大的 經濟既得利益集團。 與此同時，美國民主制度中存在的痼疾，使美國的政治健康狀況比看上去更加虛弱。三權分立制度的設計初衷是通過政府權力間彼此制衡，最終更好的為公眾服務。 但今天，權力互相牽制形成了僵局，整個國家得不到亟需的良好治理。任何一個旁觀者都會輕易而驚愕地發現，美國的“社會不平等”與“政府不作為”是那樣的密 不可分。原本賦予憲政體系的權力被諸如政治行動委員會、智囊團、媒體、遊說團體等組織榨取、篡奪。 在當今這個政治無比昂貴的時代，候選人與贊助者間存在依靠關系，沒有後者真金白銀的贊助，前者就不可能在無窮無盡的選戰中殺出一條血路。一旦金錢逾越出市 場的邊界，進入本不應參與的政治領域，誰控制了金錢，誰就能夠決定最終上臺的哪名候選人。成功上臺的政客又利用手中的權力回饋自己的贊助者。富人們既是選 民又是政客的施主，他們手中有兩套工具操縱政治；而普通百姓手中，僅有一張在政治通脹中不斷貶值的選票。外界存在一種誤會，認為是政客追逐銅臭；其實在美 國，是金主追逐候選人。 在古希臘，當富人成為巨富，並拒絕遵守規則、破壞政府體制時，雅典民主崩潰的喪鐘也就敲響了。今日之英美，也已到了岌岌可危的臨界點。 近一個世紀前，資本主義民主曾經面臨與今日類似的巨大危機，美國最高法院大法官路易斯•布蘭代斯曾警告道：“我們要麽選擇民主，要麽任憑財富集中在少數人 手中，但這兩點是無法共存的。”民主制度之所以挺過了上世紀的大蕭條，原因有二：單單是社會不平等，還不足以毀滅民主制度，不平等加上金錢的越界，才對民 主構成致命威脅；此外，當時的民主制度尚具有從危機中學習的能力——羅斯福的新政通過1933年的銀行法，降低了經濟自由放任的程度，並建立了社會保障體 系，向危機中的平民百姓提供救助。 雅典留給後世的教訓是：成功讓人自滿。人們——尤其是那些享有特權的人們——在成功後往往忽視民主，不再關心國計民生。如今，距離經濟危機爆發已過去了六 年，種種跡象顯示，英美等民主楷模國家內部的特權人群失去了關心民生的能力；民主制度也失去了學習能力。英美政府始終未能將這場危機的始作俑者——失控的 金融服務業納入管控體系。不平等現象已經從經濟領域蔓延到政治領域，而民主政府卻全然沒有權力和能力去應對。布蘭代斯可謂一語成讖。 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. |
|
| ( 時事評論｜國防軍事 ) |
