Chapter 36 6. Democracy and autocracy or good governance and bad governance?

A few years ago, I attended an academic seminar in Paris, and heard an American scholar speak with eloquence.He said that in the past, the ancient Greek Republic of Athens and Sparta fought for 27 years. In the end, democratic Athens failed and autocratic Sparta won. From the perspective of history, it was 1:0, and autocracy won.After the Second World War, the Cold War started. The democratic Western camp defeated the autocratic Soviet camp. It was 1:0, and democracy won.But so far, the confrontation between democracy and autocracy has only been a tie. What will happen next?It may be that China and the West have done the right thing, and now Russia's Putin has also begun to be authoritarian, so be careful of China and Russia joining forces.In the end, it is still unclear whether democracy will win or autocracy will win.

Probably due to the experience of the "Cultural Revolution", I always have deep doubts about the exposition of greatly simplifying history based on ideology.This is the view of extreme conservatism in the United States. According to their own ideological prejudice, they interpret thousands of years of human history as the history of the struggle between democracy and dictatorship, which is better than interpreting thousands of years of Chinese history as peasants during the "Cultural Revolution" in China. The history of the struggle between the class and the landlord class is even more absurd, because after all, there are still contradictions between the peasant class and the landlord class in Chinese history, but the history itself is much more tortuous and complicated.And the political form of democracy has almost disappeared in Europe in the thousands of years after the failure of Athenian democracy. European medieval theocracy and later colonialism, racism, nationalism, and fascism were all selectively forgotten by this scholar. Yes, this kind of Cold War thinking is still very popular in the West today.

It is undeniable that the West has provided the world with a concept: the opposition between democracy and autocracy.Many Chinese also like to use this concept as a framework for analyzing problems.This concept has a reason for its existence, because it can explain some political phenomena. For example, Hitler came to power through popular elections, but after he came to power, he began to practice autocracy. But if you think about it carefully, this concept obviously lacks explanatory power, and it is increasingly becoming an ideological tool, because this concept obviously oversimplifies the vastly different political forms of the world: in this world, only the opposition between democracy and autocracy remains. Either democracy is autocracy, and democracy is good, autocracy is bad, autocracy is fascism, it is Hitler.This simplistic analytical framework naturally limits the interpretability of this concept.For example, Iraq during Saddam Hussein's time was autocracy, and Iraq after the US invasion was democracy, but most Iraqis still believe that today's democracy is not as good as past autocracy.For another example, Zaire under Mobutu was authoritarian, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo is now a democracy, but from the perspective of ordinary Congolese, both are very bad, and massacres and massacres broke out in this turning point. War, millions of people died.

Applying this concept to China also faces difficulties.The West calls the era of Chiang Kai-shek autocracy, the era of Mao Zedong autocracy, and the new era created by Deng Xiaoping autocracy, and those who have experienced these eras know the huge difference between these eras.This fact in itself shows the limits of the concept of democracy versus autocracy.In fact, as long as there is a spirit of "seeking truth from facts", this blind spot of Western discourse can be pointed out.The binary opposition between democracy and autocracy can explain part of world affairs, but it is indeed impossible to explain today's complex world. It is even more foolish to use the method of the so-called World Alliance of Democracies to deal with today's world affairs.

Among developing countries, the most successful eradication of poverty is China, which rejects the Western political model; the most successful modernization in the Arab world is the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, which implement monarchy; and among emerging economies, Singapore with a strong government and Hong Kong with executive dominance They have all done a good job, and their governance standards are far better than those of "democracies" such as the Philippines, Albania, India, and Ukraine.Since the concepts of democracy and autocracy cannot explain the above simple facts, is there a concept that has more explanatory power and is more objective and neutral than the concept of opposition between democracy and autocracy?Have.If world politics must be simply divided into two categories, it should be good governance and bad governance.The way of good governance can be in the form of Western democracy, such as Switzerland and Denmark, or it can be in the form of non-Western democracy, such as the authoritative Singapore model, the modernization-oriented Chinese strong government model, the executive-led Hong Kong model, and the enlightened monarchy of the UAE model.The way of bad governance may be Western democracies, such as Haiti, Iraq, and Greece, which is deeply in sovereign debt crisis, or it may be non-Western democracies, such as Myanmar.

Westerners are used to the idea of ​​democracy versus autocracy because it seems to give them a sense of moral superiority. In 2006, at a seminar on China’s political reform held at the EU headquarters in Brussels, a European scholar asked me bluntly, how could the Chinese government be legitimate if it was not formed through multi-party competition and universal suffrage?I asked him: "If your words can also be established, then is it true that the founding fathers of the United States have no legitimacy? Because they claimed to represent the American people without any elections. Thailand adopted a Western democratic system, but the elections Come and go, the prestige of the elected person has never surpassed that of the king of Thailand. Where does the legitimacy of the king of Thailand come from? Who is the least trusted politician in the United States? They are members of the US Congress, but they are elected. The whole Universal suffrage was implemented in the West after the realization of modernization. Can we infer that the governments of Western countries before modernization have no legitimacy? The rights of blacks and women in the United States were not obtained through the democratic system, but in the powerful civil rights movement Pushed, and finally determined by judicial judgment. From a historical point of view, if one person, one vote, the United States could not abolish slavery at all. Slavery was abolished through war. Your EU is not elected, so why did you have it? Legal?" He was speechless.

Like Gorbachev, some of our countrymen also agree with the Western discourse of "democracy and autocracy", and they also accept the presupposition of this discourse: the world is left with the confrontation between democracy and autocracy, and they propose that China should integrate into the Western-led The so-called mainstream civilization.In fact, if the mainstream civilization is formed with the participation of the Chinese, such as the international political discourse represented by the Charter of the United Nations, I agree.But if mainstream civilization means accepting the Western political system in its entirety, integration may be the beginning of a crisis.This is how the Soviet Union disintegrated, and so did Yugoslavia.Many developing countries, once integrated, will become losers (of course, this does not mean that they will definitely win if they do not integrate). In 2008, the media of the so-called mainstream civilization in the West reported on the unrest in Tibet, which shows that this civilization dominated by Western discourse has a deep-rooted prejudice against China.The West’s long-term anti-communist tendency and support for Tibetan independence have become a popular discourse. Because of the popularity, ordinary people in the West will easily believe the incitement of their own media. This proves once again that the popularity itself is also a kind of brainwashing, and its effect is absolutely no less than This is also an important reason why Western societies cannot get rid of their own ideological prejudices because of any government's control over public opinion.

The fall of the Soviet Union taught us a great lesson.The Communist Party of the Soviet Union has stepped down and the country has disintegrated, but the West is still unwilling to accept you as an equal member, but continues to regard you as a potential threat, and always wants to weaken you as much as possible.A senior Russian official once said that NATO is always pushing hard and compressing Russia's strategic space.First, we are friends, let’s borrow your garage, then, I want to live in your house, and finally, I want to sleep with your wife, so Russia has to resist.The issue between China and the West, especially the United States, is not just a simple issue of ideological disputes, but an issue of national interests, a geopolitical and geoeconomic issue.As long as you are strong, you need resources, and you have your own different culture and values, he will feel uncomfortable, and he will exclude you, control you, and change you.If you look up the sources of funding for the so-called Tibetan government-in-exile, how many are from various Western institutions?This in itself shows that many Westerners hope that Tibet will be independent from China. In fact, many of them also hope that Taiwan, Xinjiang, and Inner Mongolia will be independent. ", they were helpless.

Mainstream civilization is linked to national interests. Play it according to the rules of the game in the West. He can accuse you at any time, violate the rules of the game, and interfere in your internal affairs. What he does is right. The country has been torn apart, and there is no need to say sorry, because his democracy is a so-called universal value. If you adopt his democratic system and fall apart, that is your own business and has nothing to do with him.Therefore, the so-called mainstream civilization is often very uncivilized. When we learn from the various advantages of the West, we must be aware of this.The Chinese are in favor of democracy, but this democracy is a democracy that will make China prosperous and strong, not a democracy that will tear China apart.The United States is particularly wary of the emergence of a powerful China. He doesn't even like a strong Europe. How much trouble will the single euro bring to the United States?Can he not be wary of a powerful China?He is wary that the rise of China will challenge his own interests in all aspects.

In 1991, Russians were filled with admiration for America.A friend of the Russian Academy of Social Sciences said to me: "At that time, the United States could 'occupy' our country, because everyone thought that in this way, our society could be completely transformed, and everyone could live a life of great material abundance. .” But the United States is very realistic and has always locked Russian democracy on a few figures, such as Gaidar, Chubais, and Yalinsky.Only these people represent democracy, no one else.Under the democratic system, the Communist Party and other political parties should be able to participate in democratic elections. However, when Yeltsin and the parliament clashed, the United States did not support both parties to adjudicate through democratic procedures, but supported one party to use force against the other.The United States recognizes people, not systems.The US later backed the very authoritarian Yeltsin.It’s okay if this is an exception, but if you look carefully, the United States has done this in Iraq, Palestine, Egypt, and Lebanon.If China implements one person one vote, the United States must only support a few dissidents it recognizes. If others come to power, it is not democracy.For China, in addition to being pro-Western, it is not enough to abandon Taiwan, Tibet and even Xinjiang.Even if you give up, he still won't accept you, because you are still too strong.

To play according to the rules of the game in the West, you not only have to elect according to his requirements, but he also has to send people to supervise, and you must also elect people who are pro-him and pro-America.Palestine has elected a Hamas, but the West does not recognize it, and Iran has elected Ahmadinejad, but the West does not accept it either.Lebanon elected a pro-Western government in 2006, and the West was full of praise, but before the words of praise were finished, Israeli artillery fire came. The Lebanese government called on the United States to intervene to stop Israel’s bombing of Lebanon, but the United States deliberately delayed it. Israel continues to bomb southern Lebanon, hoping to weaken the pro-Iranian Hezbollah.A Lebanese political scholar said indignantly to me, “Even if you elect a pro-Western government, the West will classify you and treat you differently, depending on whether you are an ally, a general friend, or a lackey. In the eyes of the West, they are probably worse than running dogs, so they can only be sacrificed.” No matter how beautiful the slogans of Western democracy sound, they can never conceal their own interests. The implementation of Western-style democratization often means the beginning of endless internal friction in third world countries.Western countries have become rich, and their per capita consumption of resources is dozens of times that of developing countries. They can withstand this kind of internal friction. Belgium has no central government for nearly 600 days, and local governments are still operating as usual, and the country is still functioning as usual.As for the third world, don't say that there is no central government for 600 days, and there is no central government for 100 days. The country may fall into civil war.Your internal friction has begun, which can only be intervened by the West, which represents the mainstream civilization, and the West will support different factions, and finally make you unable to integrate your own power.In the modern history of China, for their own benefit, the western powers supported their favorite Chinese warlords and let China fight civil war. Taking a step back, even if the Western political system represents the only political civilization in the future world, China has only one way to choose, and China must gradually learn from and accept it according to its own national conditions. To lead this process, otherwise there will be endless troubles.As a super-large country with a history of 5,000 years of civilization, its final form of political system must be unique and unique. It should include the strengths of Western systems, as well as the good things formed by its own traditions. This is China’s political reform. the correct direction.Former German Chancellor Schmidt also said: "Chinese culture is fundamentally different from Western culture. Therefore, China's social development must take a different path from Western countries. Just as ancient Rome was different from ancient Greece, Athens is also different from Sri Lanka. Bada, today's social relations in China are also fundamentally different from those in the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom, and only Americans have the idea that everything operates according to the American model." In the final analysis, whether it is a Western democratic system or any other system, it is a means, and the ultimate goal must be reflected in good governance, in the satisfaction and recognition of the people, so good governance and bad governance are the most important in today's world politics. idea.We should use it more, and the world should use it more.China is a big country with a population larger than the combined population of the entire Western world. What has been practiced and succeeded in China is the truth. The West may not understand it, oppose it, or distort it, but as long as the facts prove that our approach is correct Yes, the Chinese people clapped their hands and applauded. The West can only try to understand you, explain you, and finally have to accept you.History has proved that the West recognizes its strength.Only when the West truly realizes that not only can it not stop the rise of China's hard power, but also can't stop the rise of China's soft power, will it really accept you.It’s still the analogy I made before: it’s like learning a foreign language. If you think that English is the only good language in the world, then you will always be someone else’s student. He can always say what’s wrong with you, or even give you a failing grade. .Now that China has risen, more and more people are learning Chinese, and Chinese will naturally become a powerful language in the international community. If you want to communicate with me, you must learn my language well and try to reach my mother tongue level. I You can also correct your pronunciation and grammar, or give you a failing grade. In fact, many people of insight in the West, such as Fareed Zakaria, editor-in-chief of the American "Newsweek", also believe that the world has entered the "post-American era" today.In this "post-American era", China's political soft power can enrich human beings' ability to deal with a series of difficult global issues.Therefore, the process of China’s rise is not a so-called process of China’s integration into Western mainstream civilization, but a process of both sides treating each other as equals and learning from each other’s strengths. In the end, China and some other emerging countries will become the co-designers and leaders of the new world order together with the West. And builders, the reason is simple: without the participation of China's soft and hard power, none of the world problems brought about by globalization can be solved.