马丁·雅克以线上方式参加了会议

马丁•雅克：

感谢主办方邀请我参加今天的对话，我觉得这次对话举办的恰逢其时。

拜登总统就要召集的民主峰会非常具有讽刺意味。美国召集峰会以推动西方民主，而当前美国自己的民主却处于危机当中，处于前所未有的弱势状态。至少自内战以来，美国的民主从来没有这么弱势过。他们的做法就仿佛今年年初的国会山事件从未发生过，一切只是一场噩梦。

西方的民主概念有以下两个深刻的问题，首先，就是缺少历史背景；其次，就是它没有理解和尊重文化的差异。

第一点，历史背景。在西方人的心目中，民主已经从一个适用于特定时间和地点的政治形式，提升为适用于所有时间和所有国家的普遍形式。这样一来，任何历史背景环境的意识都已经丧失。

这样的思维方式存在很大问题。没有任何一个政治制度是万能的，所有制度都是其时代和历史环境的产物，西方的民主也不例外。在未来，即使在西方的范围内，这样的民主是否具有可持续性，也并非定数。而在过去几十年里，支撑西方民主的条件是否会继续维持下去，也是有很大问题的。所谓西方民主是永恒的，这个想法是基于一种信念，即在过去70年里，西方的基本条件一直保持不变。当然，就美国和英国而言，时间更长，将无限期地持续下去。现在愈发清晰的事实是这个假设不成立。

一些西方国家现在的民主情况都不好，他们现在的情况是30年代以来最糟糕的。我们需要认清一点，西方的民主只是在1945年之后才在西方占据了主导地位。在此之前，即1918年至1939年期间，所谓的西方民主制度，即使在欧洲范围内，也只是局限在少数几个国家。正如伟大的历史学家埃里克-霍布斯鲍姆所指出的，在1918年至1939年这一时间段内，拥有正常运作的民主政治机构并设法生存下来的欧洲国家，只有英国、芬兰、爱尔兰自由邦、瑞典和瑞士，而这些国家的人口只占欧洲人口的极小一部分。其他绝大多数的欧洲国家在这一时期的某一阶段都处于某种形式的独裁统治之下。

民主的缺失有其原因，最主要的原因是大萧条带来了灾难性影响和后果，导致像法西斯这样的独裁政权上台，破坏了民主产生的条件。相反，在第二次世界大战结束之后，西方民主走上了历史舞台，主要原因是1945年至70年代中期的长期繁荣。此后，民主进入了长期的活跃期，但发展速度大大降低，直至2007年。2008年的金融危机标志着一个重要的转折点，包括美国、英国、意大利、法国和希腊这些国家的民众对执政精英和国家治理机构越来越失望。最具戏剧性的例子就是美国，特朗普上台，国家日益分裂，社会出现两极分化，民粹主义和民族主义抬头，以及现有精英集团的处境愈加严峻。剑桥大学公共政策研究所记录显示昂格鲁萨克逊国家正面临民主危机，自1995年以来，对民主表现不满意的人增加了一倍。随着西方经济的衰落，他们肯定会不满，这种不满情绪也极有可能继续增长。即使是对长期以来作为西方民主堡垒的美国民主，现在的结果也不在确定。

2021年初国会山事件带给美国民主的冲击，似乎早已被忘记了。图片来源：纽约时报

美国从其诞生起就几乎一直处于上升状态，这是不寻常的事实，也给它的治理体系带来极大的威望和权威。但如果情况发生了逆转，如果美国持续衰落下去，那么会出现怎么样的一种状况？这就是未来的情况。美国民主还能在美国不断衰退的情况下继续生存吗？早期的迹象并不太乐观。

让我以另一种方式来说明这一点。归根结底，无论政府的形式如何，它都要为人民谋福祉，这是底线。如果不能做到这一点，这样的政体就迟早会被取代。这是现代西方民主国家面临的最大问题。无论他们把民主吹得多么天花乱坠，但是他们为人民造福的能力都在下降，他们并没有办法让人民过上更好的生活。检验的标准就是是否能够提高人民的生活水平。这正是西方民主国家现在失败的地方，而中国则与之形成了鲜明的对比。在过去的40年里，中国的治理制度已经证明比西式民主制度更有成效。

接下来是我的第二点，文化差异。西方国家一直认为自己的政治模式具有普适性，无论国家在哪里，无论历史和文化如何，都可以采用西式的民主制度。典型的例子是，2003年爆发的伊拉克战争。美国强行将自己的民主制度和政体嫁接到伊拉克，但是伊拉克的国情和文化与美国完全不同。这次的失败并不是偶然或孤立的事件。英国、法国、荷兰和其他欧洲大国在19世纪，甚至更早的时候也遵循同样的理念。欧洲列强试图将他们的意志、他们的宗教、他们的习俗和他们的恐惧强加于任何他们能够夺取的领土，包括中国。所有这些都是以文明未开化的名义进行的。以民主的名义进行的入侵和干预只不过是最新的例子。因此，在美国看来，如果一个国家有一个不合法的治理形式，那么它就认为自己有权进行干预，以强加自己的民主模式。

2003年，美国在没有联合国授权的情况下攻击伊拉克

大家不要忘记，西方的民主概念是建立在民族国家的基础之上，在民族国家之外，例如国际领域，是不适用的。这就是为什么西方从来不在国际体系中使用民主这个词，这也就是为什么在国际体系里没有民主的原因。美国是国际体系的设计者和维护者，它认为自己有权随时随地采取单边行动。现在西方国家的人口占不到全球人口总数的15%，但他们却是国际体系中的主导者。任何民主的概念都被视为与国际体系无关，不适用于国际体系。回到民族国家，民族国家与西方所青睐的一元化方式相去甚远，在这种情况下，各国被要求遵从西方的政治的规则和制度。但是，在现实中，世界上有不同的历史、文化和治理形式。不承认和不尊重这一点，就已经对包括中国在内的许多国家造成了巨大的伤害。

弗朗西斯•福山曾经说过，中国的治理体系有着超凡的连续性，两千年延续至今，远超过其他任何国家。也正因如此，中国政府能够取如此出色，如此有效。中国政治体制所拥有的深厚根基，比西方国家要深厚得多。成功的治理并非将一个国家的制度和规则照搬到其他国家，特别是在两国国情完全不同的情况下。民主意味着要尊重某一国家的文化和传统，允许该国治理模式在本国环境里开花结果。谢谢大家。

Martin Jacques：

I’d like to thank the organizers for inviting me to participate in this very timely dialogue.

There is something deeply ironic of a president Biden’s summit for democracy. Convened by the United States in order to promote the case, the western style democracy, it takes place at a time when democracy in the United States itself has never been weaker or more under threat, certainly not since the civil war. It is almost as if the insurrection at Capitol Hill earlier this year had never taken place. That it was just a bad dream. There are two profound problems in the west concept of democracy. The first is the lack of any serious historical context. The second is the failure to understand and respect cultural difference.

First, historical context. In the western mind, democracy has been elevated from a political form specific to its time and place, to a universal form all times and in all countries. In so doing, any sense of historical context has been lost. Such a mindset is profoundly flawed. No political form is a cure-all. All are a product of their time and circumstances. Western democracy is no exception. Its future, even in the west itself, is neither certain nor guaranteed. The idea western style democracy is permanent rest on a belief that the fundamental conditions that have sustained in the west over the last 70 years, longer of course in the case of the U.S. and U.K. will continue indefinitely. It is becoming increasingly clear that this cannot be assumed. Democracy in a range of western countries is not in good health. 

It is in a worst condition more than any time since the 1930s. We should remind ourselves that democracy has only been dominant in the west since 1945. During inter-war period, 1918 to 1939, democracy was confined, at least in Europe, to a very small number of countries. As the great historian Eric Hobsbawm has pointed out, the only European countries to have functioning democratic political institutions, which managed to survive for the entire period between 1918 and 1939 were the U.K., Finland, the Irish Free State, Sweden, and Switzerland. These countries contain a very small minority of Europe's population. The great majority lived under various forms of dictatorship for part, most or all of that period. 

There are many reasons why democracy was sparse, but the most important were the catastrophic effects and consequences of the Great Depression, which created the conditions for fascism and undermined those for democracy. In direct contrast, the main reason for the success of western democracy after the second world war was the long boom from 1945 until the mid-70s. After which growth continued, but at a much lower pace until 2007. The financial crisis in 2008 marked a major turning point. It led to growing disillusion in the governing elites and institutions in many western countries, including the U.S., U.K., Italy, France, and Greece. The most dramatic example was the United States, the rise of trump, growing divisions, polarization, the rise of populism and nationalism and austerity towards established elites. The very institute for public policy and Cambridge has recorded a growing crisis of democracy in the Anglo-Saxon countries with those dissatisfied with the performance of democracy doubling since 1995. As the western economy continue their relative decline, as they certainly will. It seems highly likely that such dissatisfaction will continue to grow. Even the future of U.S. democracy, long the bastion of western democracy, is now far from certain. 

The U.S. has been on the rise for virtually its whole existence and extraordinary fact. This is given its governing system great prestige and authority. But what happens when the opposite is the case? When the U.S. finds itself in an unending process of relatively decline? Because that is what the future holds. Will American democracy survive in far less increment circumstances? The early signs are not too encouraging. Let me put this point in a different way. Ultimately, whatever the form of governments it has to deliver on behalf of its people. This is the bottom line. If it can't deliver, then sooner or later it will be replaced. This is the crucial problem now faced by western democracy. Increasingly, they have been unable to deliver whatever the fancy talk about democracy. The acid test is the ability to deliver, to enhance the living standards and lives of the people. This is exactly where the western democracies are now failing, and China, in stark contrast is delivering. The Chinese governing system has proved much superior in delivering results over the last 40 years than the western-style democratic system.

This brings me to my second general point, cultural difference. The west has always regarded its model of governance to be universally applicable. Wherever the country might be, and whatever history and culture one size fits all. The classic example was the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The imposition of an entirely alien form of governance on a country that culturally and historically was profoundly different. But this abortive mission was no accident or isolated incident. The same basic philosophy had informed the colonial empires of Britain, France, the Netherlands, and other European powers in the 19th century and earlier. The European powers sought to impose their will, their religion, their customs, and their fear in whatever territory they could seize, including China. All in the name of civilizing the uncivilized. Invasion and intervention in the name of democracy is but the latest example. If a state has, in the U.S.’s view, an illegitimate form of governance, then it believes it has the right to intervene in order to impose its own version of democracy. So, the right of every country to sovereignty and its right to choose is, in the eyes of the U.S., conditional upon what choice it makes. 

Remember, too, that the west conception of democracy is solely confined to the nation-state. It has no application outside the nation state, for example crucially in the international realm. That is why the term democracy is never used by the west in the context of the international system. And this is why the latter is devoid of democracy. United States is the architect and keeper of the international system, and it believes it has the right to act unilaterally whenever and wherever it was. The west now represents less than 15 % of the world's population, and yet it is by far the dominant player in the international system. Any notion of democracy is regarded as irrelevant and inapplicable to the international system. Let's return to the nation-state, far from the monolithic approach favored by the west, where countries are expected to conform to the western norm of governance. In the reality, of course, the world embraces a huge variety of different histories, cultures, and forms of governance. The failure to recognize and respect this has inflicted huge damage on many countries, including China.

As Francis Fukuyama has rightly argued, the governing system in China has been characterized by an extraordinary continuity over a period of two millennia, far greater than that in any other country. This is one of the reasons why Chinese governance is so remarkable, and so affected. It has very deep roots, far deeper than those of any western system of governance. Successful governance is not about transplanting an abstract set of rules and procedures from one country and applying it to an entirely different environment and set of circumstances somewhere else. Democracy means respecting the culture and traditions of a country, allowing governance to grow and flower in its own indigenous conditions. Thank you very much.

（翻译：张佳奕、程泽笠）

本文系观察者网独家稿件，文章内容纯属作者个人观点，不代表平台观点，未经授权，不得转载，否则将追究法律责任。关注观察者网微信guanchacn，每日阅读趣味文章。