2014-05-07 14:52:14
【美国《赫芬顿邮报》新闻评论网站《世界邮报》2014年5月5日刊登观察者网供稿，复旦大学中国发展模式研究中心主任、春秋发展战略研究院研究员张维为教授文章。】
中国在不久的将来可能超越美国成为世界最大经济体，当我们所有人都能对此进行争辩时，世界银行国际比较项目（ICP）的这一最新消息必将点燃一轮吸引无数人的新讨论：西方的衰落与中国的崛起。
西方国家对自身衰落已多有提及。这些国家，尤其是美国，几十年来都在向世界推销他们的模式。其中，他们倾销的两样重要“物品”——市场原教旨主义和民主原教旨主义——最近似乎失去了吸引力。从金融角度来说，许多西方国家实际上已经破产。
“颜色革命”因乌克兰乱局而褪色的同时，埃及暴乱也由“阿拉伯之春”转入“阿拉伯之冬”。《经济学人》最近的一篇封面文章《西方民主病在哪儿？》承认民主已经没有了推动力。作者认为，两个主要的原因“一是2007-08年的金融危机，二是中国的崛起”。
西方有识之士在重新检验他们的模式时，再也不能忽略中国了。西班牙前首相费利佩•冈萨雷斯（Felipe Gonzalez）也许敏锐地捕捉到了这个新现实。2012年访华后，冈萨雷斯表示，“每一次访问中国，无论时隔多久，反映世界新局势的历史现象都会令人感到惊讶：中国以异乎寻常的速度崛起，而我们欧洲人找不到前进的新方向，在挣扎着不要沉没。我们不知道如何阻止这一进程，更不用说逆转了。”
然而，中国崛起在西方社会没有得到恰如其分的分析。与西方世界形成鲜明对比，中国正以前所未有之势崛起，不断提升着13亿人民的生活水平。那么，中国的制胜之道究竟何在？其要诀在于，拒绝“市场原教旨主义”和“民主原教旨主义”的神话，寻找并坚持适合自身情况的发展道路。
市场原教旨主义相信，市场这只“看不见的手”能够解决所有经济甚至社会问题。市场的信奉者不仅无视他们在非西方社会的诸多失败经历——从非洲的“结构调整”到俄罗斯的“休克疗法”，这样的盲信也把他们自己的后院引向了金融危机。
而中国在过去十几年实行了社会主义市场经济体制，将政府“看得见的手”与市场“看不见的手”相结合。这一尚不完美的模式还需改善，但它应该是对两种方式最好的融合，并给中国带来了令人震惊的成果。
《历史的终结》一书作者弗朗西斯•福山（Francis Fukuyama）也同意，中国过去三十年的快速经济发展显示了中国模式的有效性。他承认，中国崛起已经对他的理论造成挑战。自由民主制度或许不是历史的终结。
民主原教旨主义者绝不允许偏离西方民主的方向。他们宣称，一个国家的成功与否，取决于其是否采用了西方民主制度，尤其是多党制和普选制。而这些信奉者忽视了一个事实，那就是，这种模式实际上把西方和非西方民主国家拖入了可怕的困境。被大量既得利益集团所绑架的西方民主，已经深陷泥沼，无法推行任何有意义的政治改革。
而对于非西方人士，西方的民主并非总能令其满意。一个国家是由政治、经济和社会等多方面维度组成的复杂有机体。西方民主可能改变了政治上某些表层的东西，但却无法轻松改变这个有机体的其他维度。而任何社会的改变都需经历一个缓慢而艰巨的过程。“颜色革命”和“阿拉伯之春”说明了一切。
相较于西方民主，中国自己探索的民主道路更加成功。就在西方强调“形式”和“程序”的同时，中国却把更多注意力放在了“实质”和“结果”上。就算正确的形式和程序的确能将一个国家引向成功的航道，但西方也已经把自己的模式变成了教条。与此形成对比的是，中国人则在大胆地探索自己的民主形式和程序，只要这种民主能照顾到“实质”和“结果”。换句话说，中国愿意采用任何方法为人民谋取福利，而西方则坚持采用一种自认为优越的机制，不管它能给人民带来何种结果。中国道路正在取得成效。
邓小平认为，一种政治体制的质量（实质与结果）如何，取决于三个参照标准，一是政治局势是否稳定，二是该体制是否推动了人民的团结、改善了他们的生活，三是该体制是否令生产力可持续。
如果我们以这三个标准来看“颜色革命”和“阿拉伯之春”所发生的国家，就会发现，所有国家在这三方面都表现欠佳。而西方大部分国家虽然目前政局稳定，但其中有不少国家在后两个标准上正走向失败。
随着中国持续崛起，整个世界都在反思植根于西方模式的混乱与灾难，尤其是“市场原教旨主义”和“民主原教旨主义”的荒谬。决定中国未来道路的是其独特的文化传统、历史和民族环境，不是西方的教条。而中国在探索本国发展道路的过程中，已经证明了自己的成功。
英国历史学家阿诺德•J•汤因比（Arnold J. Toynbee）很早以前就预测，中国有一天会吸收其他文明的力量，在新世纪为人类贡献一个新的文明起点。
中国的确正走在汤因比所描述的道路上。“中国梦”将在此过程中成真——建立一个适度繁荣的社会，并实现国家的复兴。而这对世界是一个巨大的贡献。
（观察者网张苗凤、王璐菲/译。翻页请看英文原文）
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.
请支持独立网站，转发请注明本文链接：http://www.guancha.cn/zhang-wei-wei/2014_05_07_227509_s.shtml
本文仅代表作者个人观点。
来源：观察者网 | 责任编辑:张苗凤