第一篇：李世默：中國崛起與“元敘事”的終結(jié)(全文)

李世默：中國崛起與“元敘事”的終結(jié)

本文摘譯自2013年6月13日TED全球論壇上題為China and the End of Meta-Narratives的演講，作者是上海的風(fēng)險投資家和政治學(xué)學(xué)者、春秋研究院研究員及中歐國際工商學(xué)院校董。

我出生在“文化大革命”高潮時的上海。

外婆后來告訴我，她當(dāng)時抱著襁褓之中啼哭不止的我，心驚膽戰(zhàn)地聽著“武斗”的槍聲。

在我少年時，我被灌輸了一個關(guān)于人類社會發(fā)展規(guī)律的大故事，這個“元敘事”是這樣說的：

所有的人類社會都遵循一個線性的目標(biāo)明確的發(fā)展規(guī)律，即從原始社會開始，經(jīng)由奴隸社會、封建社會、資本主義社會、社會主義社會，最終過渡到(猜猜這個終點？)共產(chǎn)主義社會。共產(chǎn)主義社會是人類政治、社會發(fā)展的最高階段，所有的人類社會，不管民族、文化、語言有何異同，或早或晚都將演進(jìn)到這一階段。人類社會自此大同，彼此相親相愛，永遠(yuǎn)過著幸福的生活——人間天堂。但在實現(xiàn)這樣目標(biāo)之前，我們必須投身于正義與邪惡的斗爭，即正義的社會主義與邪惡的資本主義之間的斗爭，正義終將勝利！

當(dāng)然，這就是從馬克思主義發(fā)展而來的社會發(fā)展階段論，這一“元敘事”在中國影響甚廣。

我們從小就被反復(fù)灌輸了這個宏大故事，幾乎融化到了血液之中，篤信不疑。

這個“元敘事”不僅征服了中國，也影響了全世界。世界上曾經(jīng)有整整三分之一人在它籠罩之下。

然而，忽然一夜之間，蘇聯(lián)崩潰，世界滄桑巨變。

我赴美留學(xué)，改宗成為伯克利的嬉皮士，哈哈！

就這樣，開啟了我另一段成年經(jīng)歷，我又被灌輸了一個全新的宏大敘事，仿佛我這輩子只經(jīng)歷那一個還不夠似的。這個宏大敘事的完美程度與早前的那一個不分伯仲。它同樣宣稱，人類社會遵循著一個線性的發(fā)展規(guī)律，指向一個終極目標(biāo)。敘事故事是這樣展開的：

所有的人類社會，不論其文化有何異同，其民眾是基督徒、穆斯林還是儒家信徒，都將從傳統(tǒng)社會過渡到現(xiàn)代社會。在傳統(tǒng)社會中，最基本的社會單位是家庭、氏族、部落等群體；而在現(xiàn)代社會中，最基本的、神圣不可侵犯的社會單位是原子化的個人。所有的個人都被認(rèn)定為是理性的，都有同一個訴求：選舉權(quán)！

因為每一個個人都是理性的，一旦有了權(quán)選舉，必然會選出好政府，隨后就可以在好政府的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)下，過上幸福的生活，相當(dāng)于實現(xiàn)大同社會——又是一個人間天堂。選舉民主制將成為所有國家和民族唯一的政治制度，再加上一個自由放任的市場讓他們發(fā)財。當(dāng)然，在實現(xiàn)這個目標(biāo)之前，我們必須投身于正義與邪惡的斗爭，即正義的民主與邪惡的不民主之間的斗爭。前者肩負(fù)著在全世界推動民主的使命，必要時甚至可以動用武力，來打擊那些不投票不選舉的邪惡勢力。

上述宏大敘事同樣傳播甚廣。根據(jù)“自由之家”的統(tǒng)計，全世界采用選舉民主制的國家，從1970年的45個已增至2010年的115個。近20多年來，西方的精英人士孜孜不倦地在全世界奔走，推薦選舉民主這一救世良方。他們聲稱，實行多黨選舉是拯救發(fā)展中國家于水火的唯一良藥，只要吃下它，就一定會實現(xiàn)繁榮，否則，永無翻身之日。

但這一次，中國敬謝不敏。

歷史是最好的裁判。僅僅30多年間，中國就從世界上最貧困的農(nóng)業(yè)國，一躍而為世界第二大經(jīng)濟(jì)體，實現(xiàn)6.5億人脫貧。實際上，這期間全世界80%的減貧任務(wù)是由中國完成的。也就是說，如果沒有中國的成績，全世界的減貧成就不值一提。所有老的、新的民主國家的脫貧人口加起來，都不及中國一個零頭。而取得這些成績的中國，沒有實行他們所謂的選舉，也沒有實行多黨制。

所以，我禁不住問自己，我眼前畫面到底哪里不對勁兒？我的故鄉(xiāng)上海，一切都已今非昔比，新生企業(yè)如雨后春筍般發(fā)展起來，中產(chǎn)階級以史無前例的速度和規(guī)模在增長。但根據(jù)西方的那個宏大敘事，這一切繁榮景象本不應(yīng)該出現(xiàn)。

面對這一切，我開始做我唯一可以做的事，即思考它！

中國的確是個一黨制的國家，由中國共產(chǎn)黨長期執(zhí)政，不實行西方意義上的選舉。按照當(dāng)代主流的政治理論，人們據(jù)此可以生成三個判斷，即這個體制一定是僵化的、封閉的、不具合法性的。

但這些論斷被證明是完全錯誤的。事實恰恰相反，中國的一黨制具有與時俱進(jìn)的能力、選賢任能的體制、深植于民心的政權(quán)合法性，這些是確保其成功的核心要素。

大多數(shù)政治學(xué)家斷言，一黨制天生缺乏自我糾錯能力，因此很難持久。

但歷史實踐卻證明這一斷言過于自信。中共已經(jīng)在中國這個世界上最大的國家之一連續(xù)執(zhí)政64年，其政策調(diào)整的幅度超過近代任何國家。從激進(jìn)的土改到“大躍進(jìn)”運(yùn)動，再到土地“準(zhǔn)私有化”；從“文化大革命”到鄧小平的市場化改革。鄧小平的繼任者江澤民更進(jìn)一步，主動吸納包括民營企業(yè)家在內(nèi)的新社會階層人士入黨，而這在毛的時代是不可想象的。事實證明，中共具有超凡的與時俱進(jìn)和自我糾錯能力。

過去實行的一些不再有效的制度也不斷得到糾正和更新。比如，政治領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人的任期制，毛時期，政治領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人實際上是終身任職的。這容易導(dǎo)致大權(quán)獨(dú)攬、不受制約等問題。毛澤東作為現(xiàn)代中國的締造者，在位晚年也未能避免犯下類似的嚴(yán)重錯誤。隨后，中共逐步實施了領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人的任期制，并將任職的年齡上限確定為68到70歲。

最近很多人聲稱，相比于經(jīng)濟(jì)改革，中國的政治改革嚴(yán)重滯后，因此當(dāng)前亟需在政改中取得突破。這一論斷實際上是隱藏著政治偏見的話語陷阱，這個話語陷阱預(yù)設(shè)了哪些變革才

算所謂的政治改革，只有實行這些特定的變革才行。事實上，中國的政治改革從未停滯。與三十年、二十年，甚至十年前相比，中國從基層到高層，從社會各領(lǐng)域到國家治理方式上，都發(fā)生了翻天覆地的變化。如果沒有根本性的政治改革，這一切變化都是不可能的。

我甚至想大膽地判斷說，中共是世界第一流的政治改革專家。

西方主流的觀點認(rèn)為，一黨制意味著政治上封閉，一小撮人把持了權(quán)力，必然導(dǎo)致劣政和腐敗。的確，腐敗是一個大問題。不過，讓我們先打開視野看一下全景。說起來可能令人難以置信，中共內(nèi)部選賢任能競爭之激烈程度，可能超過世界上所有的政治組織。

十八大前，中共的最高領(lǐng)導(dǎo)機(jī)構(gòu)——中央政治局共有25名委員，其中只有5人出身背景優(yōu)越，也就是所謂的“太子黨”。其余20人，包括國家主席胡錦濤和政府總理溫家寶，都是平民出身。再看300多人組成的十七屆中央委員會，出身顯赫者的比例更低?？梢哉f，絕大多數(shù)中共高層領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人都是靠自身努力和激烈競爭獲得晉升的。與其他發(fā)達(dá)國家和發(fā)展中國家統(tǒng)治精英的出身相比，我們必須承認(rèn)中共內(nèi)部平民出身的干部享有廣闊的晉升空間。

中共如何在一黨制的基礎(chǔ)上保證選賢任能呢？關(guān)鍵之一是有一個強(qiáng)有力的組織機(jī)構(gòu)，即組織部。對此西方鮮有人知。這套機(jī)制選賢任能的效力，恐怕最成功的商業(yè)公司都會自嘆弗如。

它像一個旋轉(zhuǎn)的金字塔，有三個部位組合而成。

中國的公務(wù)人員分為三類：即政府職能部門、國有企業(yè)，以及政府管轄的事業(yè)單位，如大學(xué)、社區(qū)組織等。公務(wù)人員既可以在某一類部門中長期工作，也可以在三類中交替任職。政府以及相關(guān)機(jī)構(gòu)一年一度地從大學(xué)畢業(yè)生中招錄人員，大部分新人會從最低一級的科員干起。組織部門會根據(jù)其表現(xiàn)，決定是否將其提升到更高的管理職位上，比如副科、科、副處、處。這可不是電影《龍威小子》中的動作名稱，而是嚴(yán)肅的人事工作。

這一區(qū)間的職位包羅萬象，既可以負(fù)責(zé)貧困農(nóng)村的衛(wèi)生工作，也可能負(fù)責(zé)城區(qū)里的招商引資，也可能是一家公司的基層經(jīng)理。各級干部每年都要接受組織部門的考察，其中包括征求上級、下級和同事的反饋意見，以及個人操守審查，此外還有民意調(diào)查，最終擇優(yōu)提職。

在整個職業(yè)生涯中，中共的干部可以在政府職能部門、企業(yè)，以及社會事業(yè)單位等三大領(lǐng)域內(nèi)輪轉(zhuǎn)任職。在基層表現(xiàn)優(yōu)秀的佼佼者可以晉升為副局和正局級干部，進(jìn)入高級干部行列。這一級別的干部，有可能領(lǐng)導(dǎo)數(shù)百萬人口的城區(qū)，也有可能管理年營業(yè)收入數(shù)億美元的企業(yè)。從統(tǒng)計數(shù)據(jù)就可以看出選拔局級干部的競爭有多激烈，2012年，中國科級與副科級干部約為90萬人，處級與副處級干部約為60萬人，而局級與副局級干部僅為4萬人。

在局級干部中，只有最為出眾的極少數(shù)人才有機(jī)會繼續(xù)晉升，最終進(jìn)入中共中央委員會。就職業(yè)生涯來看，一位干部要晉升到高層，期間一般要經(jīng)過二三十年的工作歷練。這過程中有任人唯親的問題嗎，當(dāng)然有。但從根本上，干部是否德才兼?zhèn)洳攀翘岚蔚臎Q定性因素。事實上，中華帝國的官僚體系有著千年歷史，今天中共的組織部門創(chuàng)造性地繼承了這一獨(dú)特的歷史遺產(chǎn)，并發(fā)展成現(xiàn)代化的制度以培養(yǎng)當(dāng)代中國的政治精英。

習(xí)近平的履歷就是非常鮮明的例證。習(xí)的父親確實是中共的一位前領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人，但他的仕途也歷經(jīng)了30年之久。習(xí)近平從村干部做起，一步一個腳印的走到今天這個崗位。在他進(jìn)入中央政治局之前，他領(lǐng)導(dǎo)過的地區(qū)總?cè)丝诶塾嬕殉^1.5億，創(chuàng)造的GDP合計超過1.5萬億美元。

千萬不要誤解，這不是針對具體的人，僅僅是事實的陳述。如果要論政府管理經(jīng)驗，小布什在任德州州長前和奧巴馬第一次問鼎美國總統(tǒng)時，他們資歷還比不上中國一個小縣長。

溫斯頓·丘吉爾曾說：“民主是個壞制度，但其他制度更壞”?？上?，他沒有見識過組織部。

西方人總認(rèn)為多黨競選和普選是合法性的唯一來源。曾有人問我：“中共不經(jīng)選舉執(zhí)政，其合法性從何而來？”我的回答是：“舍我其誰的執(zhí)政能力?！?/p>

我們都知道歷史，1949年中共執(zhí)政時，由于戰(zhàn)火肆虐，外敵橫行，中國的國土四分五裂，滿目瘡痍；中國人的人均壽命僅為41歲。但在今天，中國已躋身世界第二大經(jīng)濟(jì)體，成為在全球有重要影響的大國，人民生活迅速改善，人均壽命排名奇跡般地列中等發(fā)達(dá)國家前茅。

根據(jù)皮尤研究中心在中國的民意調(diào)查報告，其中一些數(shù)據(jù)反映了中國的主流民意，其中大部分?jǐn)?shù)據(jù)在近幾十年來十分穩(wěn)定。

高達(dá)85%的中國民眾，對國家未來方向表示滿意；70%的民眾認(rèn)為在過去的五年生活得到改善；82%的民眾對未來五年頗感樂觀。

英國《金融時報》剛剛公布的全球青年人民調(diào)結(jié)果顯示：93%的中國90后年輕人對國家的未來感到樂觀。

如果這不是合法性，那我就不知道到底什么才是合法性了。

相比之下，全世界大部分選舉民主制國家都處于慘淡經(jīng)營的境況。關(guān)于美國和歐洲的政治困境，在座的聽眾都了然于胸，無需我再詳述。除了極少數(shù)例外，大部分采用選舉的發(fā)展中國家，迄今為止還在遭受貧困和戰(zhàn)火的折磨。政府通過選舉上臺后，其支持率在幾個月內(nèi)就會跌到50%以下，從此一蹶不振甚至持續(xù)走低，直到下一次選舉?？梢哉f，民主已經(jīng)陷入“一次選舉，長期后悔”的周期性怪圈。這樣下去，失去合法性的恐怕不是中國的一黨制，而是選舉民主制。

當(dāng)然，我不想造成一種誤會，認(rèn)為中國成為超級大國已經(jīng)指日可待了。中國當(dāng)前面臨重大挑戰(zhàn)，巨大變遷帶來的經(jīng)濟(jì)、社會問題數(shù)不勝數(shù)，譬如環(huán)境污染，食品安全、人口問題。在政治領(lǐng)域，最大的挑戰(zhàn)是腐敗。

目前，腐敗猖獗，危及中國的政治制度及其道德合法性。但是，很多分析人士誤判了腐

敗的原因，他們聲稱腐敗是一黨制導(dǎo)致的，只有終結(jié)一黨制才能根絕腐敗。更嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)一點兒的分析將證明這種觀點毫無根據(jù)。

據(jù)透明國際發(fā)布的全球清廉指數(shù)排名，中國近年來的排名在第70到80名之間。印度是世界上人口最多的選舉民主制國家，排名第95位，且逐年下滑；希臘排名第80位；印度尼西亞與阿根廷排名并列第100位；菲律賓排名第129位。排名在中國后的約100個國家中，超過一半是選舉民主制國家。如果選舉是根治腐敗的萬靈藥，為何在這么多國家不靈呢？

我是做風(fēng)險投資的，長于預(yù)測。因此，不做幾個預(yù)測就結(jié)束今天的討論似乎不妥。以下是我的三個預(yù)測：

未來十年：

1.中國將超過美國成為世界第一大經(jīng)濟(jì)體，按人均收入計算也將在發(fā)展中國家里名列前茅。2.腐敗雖然無法根絕，但將得到有效控制。在透明國際的全球清廉指數(shù)排行榜上，中國有望繼續(xù)提升10到20名，跨入全球最清廉的前60國之列。3.經(jīng)濟(jì)改革會加速實施，政治改革也將繼續(xù)推進(jìn)，中共仍穩(wěn)固執(zhí)政。

我們正在見證一個時代的落幕。共產(chǎn)主義和選舉民主制，都是基于普世價值的“元敘事”。在20世紀(jì)，我們見證了前者因極端教條而失??；到21世紀(jì)，后者正重蹈同樣的覆轍?！霸獢⑹隆本拖癜┌Y一樣，正在從內(nèi)部吞噬民主。我想澄清一下，我并不是要譴責(zé)民主。相反，我認(rèn)為民主政治對西方的崛起和現(xiàn)代世界的誕生居功至偉。然而，很多西方精英把某一種民主形式模式化、普世化，這是西方當(dāng)前各種病癥的病灶所在。如果西方的精英不是將大把的時間花在向外國推銷民主上，而是更多關(guān)心一下自身的政治改革，恐怕民主還不至于像今天這樣無望。

中國的政治模式不可能取代選舉民主，因為中國從不將自己的政治制度包裝成普世通用的模式，也不熱衷于對外輸出。進(jìn)一步說，中國模式的重要意義，不在于為世界各國提供了一個可以替代選舉民主的新模式，而在于從實踐上證明了良政的模式不是單一而是多元的，各國都有可能找到適合本國的政治制度。

讓我們?yōu)椤霸獢⑹隆钡臅r代畫個句號吧。共產(chǎn)主義和民主可能都是人類最美好的追求，但它們普世化的教條時代已經(jīng)過去。我們的下一代，不需要被灌輸說，世界上只有一種政治模式，所有社會都只有一種歸宿。這是錯誤的，不負(fù)責(zé)任的，也是乏味的。多元化正在取代普世化。一個更精彩的時代正緩緩拉開帷幕，我們有沒有勇氣擁抱它呢？

第二篇：李世默演講觀后感

如果他們在臺下

——李世默演講觀后感

白荷菲 201355003

筆者總結(jié)李世默的演講，主要有兩個方面的內(nèi)容：

1、元敘事危害著社會的正常發(fā)展。無論是原始社會到共產(chǎn)主義社會的單線發(fā)展敘事還是傳統(tǒng)社會到現(xiàn)代社會選舉創(chuàng)造民主美好社會的單一導(dǎo)向敘事都與現(xiàn)實相左，且引導(dǎo)社會走向極端的深淵。

2、中國共產(chǎn)黨領(lǐng)導(dǎo)下的中國模式前景是美好的。不同于西方認(rèn)為的僵化、封閉和不具合法性，中國的一黨制模式具備自我糾錯能力，能夠不斷進(jìn)行政治改革，與時俱進(jìn)；能夠通過一套成熟的黨內(nèi)機(jī)制選賢任能；而且以其卓越的競爭力贏得合法性，獲得民心。

下面，筆者將試圖以哈耶克、伯林、羅爾斯和施密特的立場和觀點來看待李世默的這一場演講。作一個大膽的假設(shè)，如果這四位政治思想家當(dāng)時都坐在臺下，他們應(yīng)該會對演講的內(nèi)容褒貶不一，但至少不是全盤否定的。

哈耶克大概是會贊成李世默對元敘事的辛辣諷刺的，因為這完全契合哈耶克認(rèn)為的人無法克服其無知，人的理性是有限的。且不論是否真的存在社會發(fā)展的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)路線，即使存在人們也無法認(rèn)識或驗證。而哈耶克推崇的演進(jìn)理性主義更是相信社會秩序是在人與人、人與自然的復(fù)雜互動中經(jīng)過漫長的無目標(biāo)的過程逐漸生成的，元敘事否定偶然性、否定演化過程的自生自發(fā)，無疑會受到哈耶克的批駁。在筆者看來，柏林對“積極自由”的警惕批判，認(rèn)為若信奉積極自由最終的一個可能是會迫使他人自由，這與哈耶克的演進(jìn)理性主義不無共通之處，在人類社會發(fā)展的層面上來看便是反對元敘事。伯林觀點讓人對元敘事不由得產(chǎn)生恐懼，若單一線性發(fā)展路線被個體或群體認(rèn)定為“真理”，那么“沒有人有權(quán)反對理性”，加諸于異見者身上的一切便具備了強(qiáng)制性與合法性。而羅爾斯對理性多元論的承認(rèn)也讓筆者相信其對元敘事是不屑一顧的，然而羅爾斯的自由主義觀點集中于對公平正義的論證，筆者未能了解到更多與李世默這一觀點相關(guān)的內(nèi)容。施密特雖與前三者不同處于一個陣營，但他卻從另一個角度對元敘事給予了批判，施密特堅信歷史的發(fā)展是由一個又一個的“非常狀態(tài)”構(gòu)成的，主權(quán)者的決斷在其中發(fā)揮著至關(guān)重要的作用，那么認(rèn)為每一個社會的非常狀態(tài)都將有同樣的結(jié)果、每一位主權(quán)者的決斷都將趨同也就荒誕不羈了。

行文至此，筆者發(fā)現(xiàn)，雖屬于政治思想的不同陣營，但不論是自由主義還是保守主義的學(xué)者都傾向于贊同演講中的第一個觀點，即社會發(fā)展并非一個元敘事。而這也逐漸成為當(dāng)今社會的普世價值，在這個時代若仍處處提意識形態(tài)的根本對立也越來越顯得不合時宜。想來具有智慧的政治思想家們早就不在元敘事行不通這一點共識上進(jìn)行爭論了，盡管他們中的不少人仍然堅信社會主義遠(yuǎn)不及資本主義。

然而當(dāng)落腳到具體的中國模式，思想家們的分歧也許就小不了了。在此拋開自由主義學(xué)者對社會主義的根本排斥，筆者希望將各位思想家思想中的具體觀點對應(yīng)上中國模式的特點和元素并加以分析。當(dāng)然，今日的“中國模式”已不同于他們那個時代計劃經(jīng)濟(jì)的社會主義了，也正因此才有探討的價值。天馬行空一想，四位學(xué)者若能目睹今日世界上的特例，其學(xué)說不知又會發(fā)生什么樣的變革。由此推想，中國模式應(yīng)當(dāng)對政治思想界產(chǎn)生相當(dāng)大的沖擊才是，對自由主義等各學(xué)派的進(jìn)一步發(fā)展也當(dāng)產(chǎn)生影響，何以目前尚未在學(xué)術(shù)界形成一股潮流，亦或已在醞釀之中也未可知，這值得筆者進(jìn)行更多的了解和學(xué)習(xí)。

哈耶克雖不會像批判納粹主義一般指責(zé)當(dāng)今中國，但對中國特色社會主義市場經(jīng)濟(jì)定是不會支持的，因為看得見的手的作用仍然巨大，與哈耶克所提倡的完全自由市場有一定距離。另一可能是哈耶克也許會視中國的改革方向是披著社會主義外衣的資本主義，一如現(xiàn)在頗有說服力的一派觀點，認(rèn)為中國已不是社會主義國家。而對于李世默提及的中國共產(chǎn)黨的自我糾錯能力，憑借哈耶克對構(gòu)建理性主義的駁斥他是一定不會贊同的，因為這種自我糾錯能力畢竟強(qiáng)調(diào)的是共產(chǎn)黨內(nèi)部的力量，很大程度上取決于人為努力和自我約束。堅持法治為自由護(hù)航的哈耶克對演講中所提及的以現(xiàn)實競爭力獲得合法性想必也不會贊成，中國共產(chǎn)黨的選賢舉能機(jī)制存在著實質(zhì)法律的因素，即便具有法律依據(jù)卻不符合哈耶克所說的法治。法治的確是當(dāng)下中國模式最大的漏洞之一。李世默的演講有回避這一問題的傾向，但中國要真的實現(xiàn)他所作的預(yù)測在十年內(nèi)獲得那些成就，法治是必須直面的。這里所說的直面并不只是強(qiáng)調(diào)其重要性，而是將解決憲法和中國共產(chǎn)黨的關(guān)系問題提到日程上來。

中國共產(chǎn)黨選賢任能的機(jī)制亦與伯林對消極自由和積極自由的界定相關(guān)，柏林大概會認(rèn)為中國共產(chǎn)黨所謂的黨內(nèi)民主很可能是摧毀個人主權(quán)的看上去科學(xué)有效的途徑，實際上則走上了積極自由的危險道路，中國共產(chǎn)黨對自我糾正能力越有信心，這套糾偏機(jī)制就越接近于絕對理性，而且會有數(shù)不清的現(xiàn)實理由為之作辯護(hù)。然而，伯林的多元論思想?yún)s是對中國模式有所包容的。筆者也同意其承認(rèn)人類價值目標(biāo)多樣但并非無限，且不能錯誤指向相對主義的觀點。中國模式的開創(chuàng)者鄧小平“不管黑貓白貓抓到老鼠就是好貓”的話語在此維度上意義重大。

羅爾斯的政治自由主義學(xué)說認(rèn)為自由憲政不是各種社會力量博弈而取得暫時妥協(xié)的結(jié)果，強(qiáng)調(diào)了公民對政體的理性基礎(chǔ)的理解與支持才是政體合法性能夠穩(wěn)固的保證。這為人們提供了對李世默中國共產(chǎn)黨的合法性來源論述的思考角度。在奪取政權(quán)和鞏固政權(quán)的許多關(guān)鍵時刻中國共產(chǎn)黨在博弈中都取得了勝利，然而這樣的競爭力就足以構(gòu)成合法性了嗎？如果論及對其理性基礎(chǔ)的理解和支持，又如何判斷呢？李世默給出的民意調(diào)查結(jié)構(gòu)一定程度上或許可以反映真實情況，然而自上而下的調(diào)查就能替代自下而上的承認(rèn)嗎？筆者對此仍然存有疑惑。而羅爾斯兩個正義原則中爭議最大的第二原則，強(qiáng)調(diào)公平優(yōu)先于效率，則正是對中國模式現(xiàn)存的貧富懸殊和腐敗問題的叩問。如果這位學(xué)者當(dāng)時坐在臺下，也許會對這一現(xiàn)象進(jìn)行詬病。

施密特的“非常狀態(tài)”理論讓筆者感觸頗多。而反思中國共產(chǎn)黨的執(zhí)政歷程，歷史又何嘗不是由非常狀態(tài)來決定的呢，這在新中國的六十四年中尤為明顯，中國的發(fā)展都帶有每一代領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人鮮明的印記，這似乎與去人格化的趨勢是背道而行的。那么，在施密特看來，是不是就可以說一個政黨或者政府的合法性很大程度上就取決于主權(quán)者在非常狀態(tài)下的決斷呢？這在中國模式的語境下，就是說中國共產(chǎn)黨是否有民意的基礎(chǔ)不能僅看經(jīng)濟(jì)成就，不能僅考察其日常的民意支持度，更要研究其在非常時刻的決斷是否符合人民的根本利益。也許這讓人對中國未來的判斷蒙上了一絲保守主義的悲觀色彩，然而，筆者卻認(rèn)為這個角度的思考是有利的，有助于安全的。

以上是筆者在觀看李世默演講后結(jié)合當(dāng)代西方政治思潮這一門課程所得出的一些感想。非要用這四位政治思想家的觀點去看待和評論這一場演講雖然稍有牽強(qiáng)，但是筆者所想要表達(dá)的是，這些學(xué)說和觀點對于研究當(dāng)今中國模式仍有重要價值，并不因其所屬的是自由主義或保守主義陣營便能斷論，學(xué)術(shù)界需要的是將他們的學(xué)說分條理析地與中國當(dāng)下實情作一一的對應(yīng)研究，而中國模式也必將對政治學(xué)思想領(lǐng)域的發(fā)展產(chǎn)生沖擊。

第三篇：2016李世默在清華演講稿全文

2016李世默在清華演講稿全文

李世默在清華演講稿全文，2016年，李世默在清華大學(xué)時事大講堂上，借用五位政治學(xué)學(xué)者的理論，分析認(rèn)為21世紀(jì)是靠改革競爭的世紀(jì)，中國共產(chǎn)黨領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的中國必將在此競爭中脫穎而出，因為正處在少年期的中國政治體制在全世界大國中最具有改革能力。在演講中一起上了一堂“從全球政治學(xué)視野看中國共產(chǎn)黨與改革”的公開課從全球政治學(xué)視野看中國共產(chǎn)黨與改革“為題從全球政治學(xué)視野看中國共產(chǎn)黨與改革”為題李世默在清華演講稿全文

大家下午好，很開心來清華和同學(xué)們交流。我不是老師，我是生意人，但賺錢以外，我的業(yè)余愛好是研究中國共產(chǎn)黨。首先，我要聲明我不是中國共產(chǎn)黨黨員，小時候試過，但可能因為生活作風(fēng)有問題，被拒絕了(笑)。后來入黨未成，一不小心當(dāng)上了資本家。我平時是周一到周五做資本家，周六周日研究中國共產(chǎn)黨。今天我跟大家分享我這些年研究中共的一點——不能說是學(xué)問——只是一些心得，希望大家能夠?qū)ξ业男牡锰岢鲆庖姾团小?/p>

我要講的題目是《從全球政治學(xué)視野看中國共產(chǎn)黨與改革》。政治學(xué)，英語叫politicalscience，就是政治科學(xué)，但政治學(xué)是一門軟科學(xué)，就是用科學(xué)的方式來研究社會，研究政治，研究軟的東西

那么科學(xué)的方式是什么呢?一般的科學(xué)方式是：第一步是要設(shè)立一個假定，拿這個假定到實驗室里去驗證，有的假定被驗證出是對的，有的假定被驗證出是錯的。驗證了對的假定可能成為理論。過一段時間又有人有新的假定，新的假定被驗證以后就推翻以前的理論，成為新的理論?？茖W(xué)就是這樣發(fā)展的。我今天講的所有內(nèi)容都只是假定。

今天的假定是：全世界都需要改革。

21世紀(jì)是一個在改革中競爭的時代。能成功改革的國家將是贏家，改革失敗的國家將是輸家。

在這場改革競爭中，中國共產(chǎn)黨領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的中國將在全球大國中脫穎而出。所以，21世紀(jì)是中國的世紀(jì)。

全世界幾乎所有國家都面臨治理危機(jī)，從發(fā)達(dá)國家到發(fā)展中國家，都在說“我們需要改革，不改革不行了”。可是幾乎在所有國家，改革都陷入了巨大的困境，舉步維艱，四面楚歌，為什么?

我想借用五位世界一流的政治學(xué)學(xué)者的眼光來講這個題目。塞繆爾·亨廷頓：政治衰敗

塞繆爾·亨廷頓《變化社會中的政治秩序》

第一位叫塞繆爾·亨廷頓，大家都知道他寫的《文明的沖突與世界秩序的重建》，但在政治學(xué)里我覺得他最好的著作是《變化社會中的政治秩序》。亨廷頓發(fā)明了一個概念叫“政治衰敗”(politicaldecay)，這是近代政治學(xué)里很重要的一個概念。

亨廷頓在《變化社會中的政治秩序》里研究了二戰(zhàn)以后新獨(dú)立的國家，這些國家的大環(huán)境在發(fā)生巨大的變遷，可是他們的政治制度不能相應(yīng)地改變，去適應(yīng)新的環(huán)境。這種情況下，就發(fā)生了政治衰敗。他還說在體制很穩(wěn)定、很成功的情況下也會發(fā)生政治衰敗。意思就是說，現(xiàn)有政治體制發(fā)生了所謂的固化，固化到一定程度，環(huán)境發(fā)生了變化，社會發(fā)生了變化，世界變了，可是政治體制沒有辦法去推動質(zhì)的變化來適應(yīng)外部環(huán)境和社會內(nèi)在的變化，那么這個政治體制就發(fā)生了政治衰敗。

曼瑟爾·奧爾森《國家興衰探源》

第二位叫曼瑟爾·奧爾森，他的代表作是《國家興衰探源》。他創(chuàng)造的概念叫“分利聯(lián)盟”(distributivecoalition)。

奧爾森在《國家興衰探源》里研究民主體制，他說民主體制里邊必然出現(xiàn)利益集團(tuán)，這些利益集團(tuán)通過多年不斷積累權(quán)力，形成分利聯(lián)盟。意思就是利益集團(tuán)權(quán)力強(qiáng)大到一定程度，他們可以尋租，他們可以俘獲甚至操控政治體制，使政治體制為分利聯(lián)盟的利益服務(wù)，而不是為整體利益服務(wù)，甚至以損害整體利益為代價來維護(hù)分利聯(lián)盟的利益。奧爾森說在民主體制里，分利聯(lián)盟俘獲政治體制這個問題是一個無解的困境。只有兩種東西可以打破這個困境，一個是革命，一個是外部的沖擊。如戰(zhàn)爭。這是非常悲觀的一個角度，無解。

弗朗西斯·福山：否決制

弗朗西斯·福山《政治秩序的起源》、《政治秩序和政治衰敗》

第三位叫弗朗西斯·福山，最近兩/fanwen/1545本書叫《政治秩序的起源》與《政治秩序和政治衰敗》。福山把前兩個人所創(chuàng)造的概念——“政治衰敗”和“分利聯(lián)盟”——組合起來討論政治衰敗。

第一，他說政治衰敗在任何政治體制內(nèi)部都可能發(fā)生，無論是威權(quán)體制還是民主體制。福山說，現(xiàn)代治理需要三大要素：一是強(qiáng)政府，二是法治，三是民主問責(zé)。

福山說美國現(xiàn)在正處于政治衰敗中，原因之一是當(dāng)代美國是強(qiáng)法治、強(qiáng)民主、弱政府。而這個局面使得美國無法推進(jìn)急需的改革。

福山還提到兩種問責(zé)制，一種叫自下而上的問責(zé)制，一種叫自上而下的問責(zé)制，兩種制度各有優(yōu)劣。

自下而上的問責(zé)制即通常說的民主制度，你不好老百姓把你選下去。它的優(yōu)勢在于有一個自動回應(yīng)機(jī)制，你做的不好老百姓可以選另外一位。它的劣勢在于分利聯(lián)盟，福山又創(chuàng)造了一個新詞叫“否決制”——“Vetocracy”，就是分利聯(lián)盟把持政治體制，為了維護(hù)自己的利益，損害集體的利益?！癡etocracy”其實就是中國人說的，成事不足敗事有余。自上而下的問責(zé)制，也許中國是自上而下的問責(zé)制，私人企業(yè)也是自上而下的問責(zé)制，它有強(qiáng)大的執(zhí)行力，這來自于政治獨(dú)立性，就是福山說的“politicalautonomy”。它的困境和弊端，第一是信息的困境，底下的人不把正確的信息給老板，老板摸不清楚下面到底怎么回事，導(dǎo)致決策錯誤。第二是福山說的所謂的“壞皇帝”的風(fēng)險，老板出問題了怎么辦?

福山說改革在美國正在失敗，美國沒有辦法改革。為什么?他舉了一些原因。第一，民主和透明成了美國改革的絆腳石。美國太多的公眾參與，太多的透明，也就是說太多的民主，使這個國家的改革寸步難行。

第二，公民社會在某種程度上也不利于美國的改革。公民社會孵化了利益集團(tuán)的形成，利益集團(tuán)積累權(quán)力形成分利聯(lián)盟，分利聯(lián)盟導(dǎo)致否決制。在這樣的公民社會里，只要有一個分利聯(lián)盟不喜歡一件事，它就能把這件事給黃了。要所有人都覺得沒問題才能做，結(jié)果是什么事都做不成，改革更做不成。

第三，是法治。美國的法治出現(xiàn)了治理的司法化。就是說所有的政治、所有治理都要通過立法。立法的過程遭到分利聯(lián)盟的俘獲，即便立了法，分利聯(lián)盟再通過司法程序百般阻撓它的執(zhí)行。

最后，是自由。福山說自由和特權(quán)是一步之遙，一不小心自由就變成了特權(quán)。美國最高法院今年判決說政治獻(xiàn)金沒有上限，這是憲法說的言論自由。就是說我自己合法賺來的錢，為什么不能在電視上買廣告，說某某政客好，說哪些政策好，哪些政策不好?給政治獻(xiàn)金設(shè)上限是違反言論自由的。而維護(hù)言論自由的后果是什么呢?當(dāng)然是越有錢越牛，所以自由與特權(quán)是一步之遙。

王紹光：中國式共識型決策

王紹光《中國式共識型決策》

第四位政治學(xué)學(xué)者，是王紹光，他是香港中文大學(xué)的教授。他研究國家能力和國家建設(shè)。他近期的著作叫《中國式共識型決策》。王老師用中國在2016年啟動的醫(yī)保改革為案例，仔細(xì)闡述了當(dāng)代中國的政治體制如何超越利益集團(tuán)，成功推動改革。

中國治理模式的三大要素

我認(rèn)為中國的治理模式有三大核心要素。

一是賢能治理。這是理想狀態(tài)，賢能治理也會出問題。中國選賢任能的模式，就是中國的官員來自于草根，最有能耐的人通過這個體系一步步往上爬，最終進(jìn)入中國的最高治理階層。

二是實驗治理。中國幾十年來推/fanwen/1545行很多政策，都是從小地方先試起來。失敗了就算了。成功了就讓各個地方學(xué)，再成功了就全國推廣。失敗的成本較低。這樣的實驗治理只能在中央集權(quán)的國家才能實現(xiàn)，在美國不可能，你在舊金山實驗一個東西成了，然后華盛頓讓麻省也試，做不到的。

三是回應(yīng)治理。有沒有能力回應(yīng)人民的需求，回應(yīng)制度到底健康不健康。據(jù)我了解，中共其實有非常復(fù)雜和有效及時的反應(yīng)機(jī)制。

三中全會是政治改革的又一個里程碑

中國30多年的改革開放，取得巨大的成就，也面臨巨大挑戰(zhàn)。

經(jīng)濟(jì)挑戰(zhàn)非常嚴(yán)峻，中國經(jīng)濟(jì)模式走到現(xiàn)在創(chuàng)造了巨大的財富，但這個模式要改。環(huán)境變了，經(jīng)濟(jì)結(jié)構(gòu)變了，所以要改變這個經(jīng)濟(jì)結(jié)構(gòu)，可是在改變過程中增長率就會下降，又會引發(fā)其他問題。這個平衡怎么掌握，很難。

腐敗是一個巨大的挑戰(zhàn)。環(huán)境也是巨大的挑戰(zhàn)。這么大規(guī)模，這么快速工業(yè)化，人類歷史上前所未有，造成的環(huán)境問題是巨大的。

三中全會好像有600多條改革的政策，國企改革、土地改革、法律改革、經(jīng)濟(jì)改革。三中全會開完后，很多學(xué)者、媒體都說中國開始實施大膽的經(jīng)濟(jì)改革，可是政治改革停滯不前甚至開倒車。我覺得這是一個誤讀。

我覺得三中全會啟動了中國幾十年來最大膽的政治改革。很多人把政治改革的定義定死了，認(rèn)為只有往某種方向去改變的政策才叫政治改革，朝其他方向作的改變，再巨大也不叫政治改革。但如果把政治改革作為一個中性詞，就是對政治體制動刀，對政治體制做質(zhì)的改變，我想三中全會是一個里程碑。

為什么是里程碑?我認(rèn)為有三方面。

一是中央和地方政府權(quán)力分配發(fā)生了巨大變化。三中全會比較重要的一點就是國家預(yù)算，以前中國的國家稅收只有一半在中央政府手里，這次把它變成了全國的預(yù)算，這是巨大的權(quán)力再分配。

二是黨紀(jì)和國法的權(quán)力分配發(fā)生了巨大變化。三中全會對中紀(jì)委進(jìn)行了重組，把地方紀(jì)委的決策權(quán)力從地方黨委那里抽出來。這又是一個巨大的權(quán)力再分配。

三是黨和國家的關(guān)系發(fā)生了巨大變化。1949年建國時引進(jìn)的蘇聯(lián)模式“三駕馬車”——人大對應(yīng)最高蘇維埃、黨中央對應(yīng)蘇共黨中央、國務(wù)院對應(yīng)蘇聯(lián)的部長聯(lián)席會。三中全會——我認(rèn)為——把三駕馬車的格局打破了。國家成立了很多領(lǐng)導(dǎo)小組和委員會，都是黨中央在領(lǐng)導(dǎo)。比如，中央國家安全委員會，負(fù)責(zé)國內(nèi)國外的安全;深化改革領(lǐng)導(dǎo)小組，負(fù)責(zé)經(jīng)濟(jì)改革政策。這是一個驚人的權(quán)力再分配，是一個巨大的政治改革。中國共產(chǎn)黨走到了中國國家治理的前臺中央。

所以，我覺得三中全會是中國改革歷程中一個巨大的里程碑，很多人把新中國的60多年分成兩個30年，我覺得三中全會啟動了第三個30年。第三個30年最重要的兩個方向：一是政治治理的完善，一是全方位民族復(fù)興。中國政治體制改革的原動力

近些年來，政治學(xué)里流行的說法是，選舉民主制國家最善于自我糾正，也就是改革，因為能夠通過選舉更換執(zhí)政黨。但是現(xiàn)實卻恰恰相反。民主國家普遍陷入治理危機(jī)和改革困境。而中國呢?

回顧中華人民共和國的65年歷史，在中共的一黨領(lǐng)導(dǎo)下，中國經(jīng)歷的政治、經(jīng)濟(jì)變革，幅度和深度是近代史上罕見的，遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超出幾乎所有其他國家，包括所有民主選舉制的國家。為什么?我認(rèn)為這是中國政治體制的獨(dú)特性質(zhì)的結(jié)果。在中國，核心是中國共產(chǎn)黨，中共本身就是中國的政治體制。中國是世界上大國中唯一的一個擁有這么一個獨(dú)立于社會又同時來自于社會的政治力量，正如福山所說的，politicalautonomy。中共來自于中國社會的草根，又高于中國社會的所有利益集團(tuán)，這個機(jī)制就是中國改革的原動力。

尼可羅·馬基雅維利：

每種政治制度都有它衰敗的一面

尼可羅·馬基雅維利《論李維》

回到最開始我說要跟大家分享五位政治學(xué)家，前面講了四位，都是我們同時代的人。

第五位是一位古人，這位古人是政治學(xué)的泰斗，沒有他就沒有政治學(xué)，他叫尼可羅·馬基雅維利，是500年前佛洛倫薩共和國的外交長官。美第奇家族復(fù)辟以后，把他打入監(jiān)獄，施以酷刑，然后將他流放到鄉(xiāng)村。在寫給友人弗蘭西斯科·維托里的信中，馬基雅維利講述了自己的流放生活。在漫長而平靜的日子里，每當(dāng)夜深人靜的時候，馬基雅維利總會換上宮廷的華服，進(jìn)入自己的書房。在那里，他廢寢忘食地閱讀先哲遺篇，與古賢心照神交。只有在那樣的漫漫長夜里，他才感覺不到饑餓干渴，也不再懼怕死亡。在那里，他寫下了流傳百世的代表作《論李維》，這本書是所有政治學(xué)的基石。

他在這本書里，把全世界所有政治制度歸納成三種：一是君主制;一是貴族制，他說的貴族制是希臘語的貴族，就是我們講的選賢任能或賢能制，不是后來歐洲出現(xiàn)的世襲制的貴族;三是民主制。

他說每一種政治制度都能夠表現(xiàn)得非常好，可是每一種政治制度都有它衰敗的一面。君主制會衰敗成暴政，貴族制會衰敗成寡頭制，民主制會衰敗成放蕩制。

我想留給大家的一個想法，就是也許世界上沒有永遠(yuǎn)的東西。我們研究政治學(xué)，研究任何一個國家的政治體制，最值得研究的就是這個政治體制在它的生命周期里，是在哪個點上。如果在少年期那是一種預(yù)測，如果在中年期和老年期就是另一種預(yù)測。在現(xiàn)實中，也許沒有一個政治體制是永恒的。每一個政治體制，不管是君主制也好，貴族制也好，民主制也好——中國現(xiàn)在實行的也許是賢能制，美國是民主制——所有這些政治體制最終都可能走向衰敗/fanwen/1545，就像人的身體一樣。政治學(xué)的基礎(chǔ)就是，把政治體制、社會當(dāng)人的身體一樣研究。把政治體制比作人的身體，就像人小時候經(jīng)常生病，每年都感冒，病歷卡很厚，但是一到發(fā)育的時候什么病都沒有了，到七八十歲病又回來了，也就臨近死亡了。

我經(jīng)常把當(dāng)代中國比作美國100多年前，100多年前的美國也在發(fā)生巨大的變革，快速地工業(yè)化，那個時候的美國，它的腐敗、它的暴力遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超過今天的中國，但那個時候的美國，它的政治體制在它的少年期，那些再嚴(yán)重的問題也沒能阻擋它成為超級大國。中國的政治體制也有很多問題。每個人身體里邊都有癌細(xì)胞，就看它什么時候出來。每個政治體制的基因里邊也有癌細(xì)胞。我的假定是，中國的政治體制在少年期。美國政治體制，以及整個西方的政治體制，倒是一個值得研究的問題，它們肯定不處在少年期。我們要研究的問題就是西方發(fā)達(dá)國家的政治體制，在它們的生命周期里邊是中年期還是晚年期?如果美國的政治體制是一個50歲的人，它還有一次機(jī)會可以重新復(fù)興。如果是80歲呢，就像福山講的那樣，政治衰敗就是眼前的宿命。

中國的政治體制處在少年期，它具有巨大的活力——也就是改革的能力，21世紀(jì)是中國的世紀(jì)。

以上這篇李世默在清華演講稿全文為您介紹到這里，希望它對您有幫助。如果您喜歡這篇文章，請分享給您的好友。更多演講盡在：精彩演講望大家多支持本網(wǎng)站，謝謝

第四篇：李世默--兩種制度的傳說

Good morning, and my name is Eric Li, and I was born here.No, I wasn’t born there;this was whereI was born.Shanghai, at the height of the Cultural Revolution.My grandmother tells me that she heard the sound of gunfire along with my first cries.When I was growing up, I was told a story that explained all I ever needed to know about humanity.It went like this.All human society develop in linear progression, beginning with primitive society, then slave society, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, and finally, guess where we end up? Communism!Sooner or later, all of humanity, regardless of the culture, language, nationality, will arrive at this final stage of political and social development.The entire world’s people will be unified in this paradise on earth and live happily ever after.But before we get there, we’re engaged in a struggle between good and evil, the good of socialism against the evil of capitalism, and the good shall triumph.That of course, was the meta-narrative distilled from the theories of Karl Marx.And the Chinese bought it.We were taught the grand story day in and day out.It became part of us, and we believed in it.The story was a bestseller.About one third of the entire world’s population lived under that meta-narrative.Then the world changed overnight.As for me, disillusioned by the failed religion of my youth, I went to America and became a Berkeley hippie.Now, as I was coming of age, something else happened.As if one big story wasn’t enough, I was told another one.This one was just as grand.It also claims that all human societies develop in a linear progression towards a singular end.This one went as follows: all societies, regardless of culture, be a Christian, Muslim, Confucian, must progress from traditional societies in which groups are the basic units to modern societies in which atomized individuals are the sovereign units, and all these individuals are, by definition, rational, and they all want one thing: the vote.Because they are all rational, once given the vote, they produce the good government and live happily ever after.Paradise on earth,again.Sooner or later, electoral democracy will be the only political system for all countries and all peoples, with a free market to make them all rich.But before we get there, we’re engaged in a struggle between good and evil.The good belongs to those who are democracies and charged with a mission of spreading it around the globe, sometimes by force, against the evil of those who do not hold elections.This story also became a bestseller.According to the Freedom House, the number of democracies went from 45 in 1970 to 115 in 2010.In the last 20 years, Western elites tirelessly trotted around the globe selling this prospectus: multiple parties fight for political power and everyone voting on then is the only path to salvation to the long-suffering developing world.Those who buy the prospectus are destined for success.Those who do not are doomed to fail.But this time, the Chinese did not buy it.Fool me once, the rest is history.In just 30 years, China went from one of the poorest agricultural countries in the world to a second-largest economy.650 million people were lifted out of poverty.80% of the entire world’s poverty alleviation during that period happened in China.In other words, all the new and old democracies put together amounted to a mere fraction of what a single, one-party state did without voting.See, I grew up on this stuff: food stamps.Meat was rationed to a few hundred grams per person per month at one point.Needless to say, I ate all my grandmother’s portions.So I ask myself, what is wrong with this picture? Here I am in my hometown, my business growing leaps and bound.Entrepreneurs are starting companies every day.Middle class is expending in speed and scale unprecedented in human history.Yet, according to the grand story, none of this should be happening.So I went and did the only thing I could.I studied it.Yes, China is a one party state run by the Chinese Communist Party, the Party, and they don’t hold elections.Three assumptions are made by the dominant political theories of our time.Such a system is operationally rigid, politically closed, and morally illegitimate.Well, the assumptions are wrong.The opposites are true.Adaptability, meritocracy, and legitimacy are the three defining characteristics of China’s one-party system.Now most political scientists will tell us that a one-party system is inherently incapable of self-correction.It won’t last long because it cannot adapt.Now here is the facts.In 64 years of running the largest country in the world, the range of the party’s policies has been wider than another country in the recent memory, from radical land collectivization to the Great Leap Forward, then the privatization of farmland, then the Cultural revolution, then Deng Xiaoping’s market reform, then successor Jiang Zemin took the giant political step of opening up party membership to private businesspeople, something unimaginable during Mao’s rule.So the party self-corrects in rather dramatic fashions.Institutionally, new rules get enacted to correct previous dysfunctions.For example, term limits.Political leaders used to retain their positions for life, and they used that to accumulate power and perpetuate their rules.Mao was the father of modern China, yet his prolonged rule les to disastrous mistakes.So the party instituted term limits with mandatory retirement age of 68 to 70.One thing we often hear is political reforms have lagged far behind economic reforms and China is in dire need of political reform.But this claim is a rhetorical trap hidden behind a political bias.See, some have decide a priori what kinds of change they want to see, and only such changes can be called political reform.The truth is political reform have never stopped.Compared with 30 years ago, 20 years ago, even 10years ago, every aspect of Chinese society how the country is governed, from the most local level to the highest center, are unrecognizable today.Now such changes are simply not possible without political reforms of the most fundamental kind.Now I would venture to suggest the Party is the world’s leading expert in political reform.The second assumption is that in a one-party state, power gets concentrated in the hand of the few, and bad governance and corruption follow.Indeed, corruption is a big problem.But let’s first look at the larger context.Now this may be counterintuitive to you.The party happens to be one of the most meritocratic political institutions in the world today.China’s highest ruling body, the Politburo, has 25 members.In the most recent one, only five of them came from a background of privilege, so-called princelings.The other 20, including the President and the Premier, came from entirely ordinary backgrounds.In the larger central committee of 300 or more, the percentage of those who were born into power and wealth was even smaller.The vast majority of senior Chinese leaders worked and competed their way to the top.Compare that with the ruling elites in both developed and developing countries, I think you will find the Party being near the top in upward mobility.The question then is, how could that be possible in a system run by one party? Now we come to a powerful political institution, little-known to Westerners: the Party’s Organization Department.The Department functions like a giant human resource engine that would be the envy of even some of the most successful corporations.It operates a rotating pyramid made up of three components: civil service, state-owned enterprises, and social organizations like university or community program.They form separate yet integrated career paths for Chinese officials.They recruit college grads into entry-level positions in all three tracks, and they start from the bottom, called keyuan.Then they could get promoted through four increasingly elite ranks: fuke, ke, fuchu, and chu.Now these are not moves from karate kids, okay? It’s serious business.The range of position is wide, from running health care in a village to foreign investment in a city distract to manger in a company.Once a year, the department reviews their performance.They interview their superiors, their peers, their subordinates.They vet their personal conduct.They conduct public opinion surveys.Then they promote the winners.Throughout their careers, these cadres can move through and out of all three tracks.Over time, the good ones move beyond the four base levels to the fuju, and ju levels.There, they enter high officialdom.By that point, a typical assignment will be to manage a distract with population in the millions or a company with hundreds of millions of millions of dollars in revenue.Just show you how competitive the system is, in 2012, there were 900,000 fuke and ke levels, 600,000 fuchu and chu levels, and onlu 40,000 fuju and ju levels.Afer the ju levels, the best few move further up several more ranks, and eventually make it to the Central Committee.The process takes a two to three decades.Does patronage play a role? Yes, of course.But merit remains the fundamental driver.In essence, the Organization Department runs a modernized version of China’s centuries-old mandarin system.China’s new president, Xi Jinping, is a son of a former leader, which is very unusual, first of his kind to make the top job.Even for him, the career tool a 30 years.He started as a village manager, and by the time he entered the Politburo, he had managed areas with total population of 150 million people and combined GDPs of 1.5 trillion US dollars.Now, please don’t get me wrong, okay? This is not a putdown of anyone, it is just a statement of fact.George W.Bush, remember him? This is not a putdown.Before becoming Governor of Texas, or Barack Obama before running for President, could not make even a small county manager in China’s system.Winston Churchill once said that democracy is a terrible system except for all the rest.Well, apparently he hadn’t heard of the Organization Department.Now, westerners always assume that multi-party election with universal suffrage is the only source of political legitimacy.I was asked once, “the party wasn’t voted in by election.Where is the source of legitimacy?”Isaid, “how about competency?” we all know the facts.In 1949, when the party took power, China was mired in civil wars, dismembered by foreign aggression, average life expectancy at that time, 41 years old.Today it is the second largest economy in the world, an industrial powerhouse, and its people live in increasing prosperity.Pew research polls Chinese public attitudes and here are the numbers in recent years.Satisfaction with the direction of the country: 85 percent.Those who think they’re better off than five years ago: 70%.Those who expect the future to be better a whopping 82%.Financial Times polls global youth attitudes, and these numbers, brand new, just came from last week.93% of China’s Generation Y are optimistic about their country’s future.Now if this is not legitimacy, I’m not sure what is.In contrast, most electoral democracies around the world are suffering from dismal performance.Idon’t need to elaborate this audience how dysfunctional it is from Washington to European capitals.With a few exceptions, the vast number of the developing countries that have adopted electoral regimes are still suffering from poverty and civil strife.Governments get elected, and then they fall below 50 percent approval in a few months and stay there and get worse until the next election.Democracy is becoming a perpetual cycle of elect and regret.At this rate, I’m afraid it is democracy, not China’s one-party system, that is in danger of losing legitimacy.Now I don’t want to create the misimpression that China’s hunky-dory on the way to some kind of superpowerdom.The country faces enormous challenges.Social and economic problems that come with wrenching change like this are mind-boggling.Pollution is one, food safety, population issues.On the political front, the worst problem is corruption.Corruption is widespread and undermines the system and its legitimacy.But most analystmis-diagnose the disease.They say the corruption is the result of the one-party system, and therefore in order to cure it you have to do away with the entire system.But more careful look would tell us otherwise.Transparency International ranks China between 70 and 80 in recent years among 170 countries, and it’s still moving up.India, the largest democracy in the world, is 94 and dropping.For the hundreds or so countries that are ranked below China, more than half of them are electoral democracies.So if election is the panacea for corruption, how come these countries cannot fix it? Now, I’m a venture capitalist.I make bets.It wouldn’t be fair to end this talk without putting myself on the line and making some predictions.So here they are.In the next 10 years, China will surpass the US and become the largest economy in the world;income per capital will be near the top of all developing countries.Corruption will be curbed, not eliminated and China will move up 10-20 notches to above 60 in TI ranking.Economic reform will accelerate, political reform will continue, and the one-party system will be holding firm.We live in the dust of an era.Meta-narratives that make universal claims failed us in the 20th century and are failing us in the 21st.meta-narrative is the cancer that is killing democracy from the inside.Now I want to clarify something.I’m not here to make an indictment of democracy.On the contrary, I think democracy contributed to the rise of the west and the creation of the modern world.It is the universal claim that many western elites are making about their political system, the hubris, that is the heart of the West’s current ills.If they would spend just a little less time on trying to force their way onto others, and a little bit more on political reform at home, they might give their democracy a better chance.China’s political model will never supplant electoral democracy, because unlike the latter, it doesn’t pretend to be universal.It cannot be exported.But that is the point precisely.The significance of China’s example is not that it provides and alternative but the demonstration that alternatives exist.Let us draw to a close this era of meta-narratives.Communism and democracy may both be laudable ideals, but the era of their dogmatic universalism is over.Let us stop telling people and our children there is only one way to govern ourselves and a singular future towards which all societies must evolve.It is wrong and it is irresponsible and worst of all, it is boring.Let universality make way for plurality.Perhaps a more interesting age is upon us.Are we brave enough to welcome it? Thank you.

第五篇：李世默TED演講稿(英文)

Good morning.My name is Eric Li, and I was born here.But no, I wasn’t born there.This was where I was born: Shanghai, at the height of the Cultural Revolution.My grandmother tells me that she heard the sound of gunfire along with my first cries.When I was growing up, I was told a story that explained all I ever needed to know that humanity.It went like this.All human societies develop in linear progression, beginning with primitive society, then slave society, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, and finally, guess where we end up? Communism!Sooner or later, all of humanity, regardless of culture, language, nationality, will arrive at this final stage of political and social development.The entire world’s peoples will be unified in this paradise on earth and live happily ever after.But before we get there, we’re engaged in a struggle between good and evil, the good of socialism against the evil of capitalism, and the good shall triumph.That, of course, was the meta-narrative distilled from the theories of Karl Marx.And the Chinese bought it.We were taught that grand story day in and day out.It became part of us, and we believed in it.The story was a bestseller.About on third of the entire world’s population lived under that meta narrative.Then, the world changed overnight.As for me, disillusioned by the failed religion of my youth, I went to America and became a Berkeley hippie.Now, as I was coming of age, something else happened.As if one big story wasn’t enough, I was told another one.This one was just as grand.It also claims that all human societies develop in a linear progression towards a singular end.This one went as follows.All societies, regardless of culture, be it Christian, Muslim, Confucian, must progress from traditional societies in which groups are the basic units to modern societies in which atomized individuals are the sovereign units, and all these individuals are, by definition, rational, and they all want one thing: the vote.Because they all rational, once given the vote, they produce good government and live happily ever after.Paradise on earth, again.Sooner or later, electoral democracy will be the only political system for all countries and all peoples, with a free market to make them all rich.But before we get there, we’re engaged in a struggle between good and evil.The good belongs to those who are democracies and are charged with a mission of spreading it around the globe, sometimes by force, against the evil of those who do not hold elections.Now.This story also became a bestseller.According to the Freedom House, the number of democracies went from 45 in 1970 to 115 in 2010.In the last 20years, Western elites tirelessly trotted around the globe selling this prospectus: multiple parties fight for political power and everyone voting on them is the only path to salvation to the long-suffering developing world.Those who buy the prospectus are destined for success.Those who do not are doomed to fail.But this time, the Chinese didn’t buy it.Fool me once… The rest is history.In just 3p years, China went from one of the poorest agricultural countries in the world to its second-largest economy.Six hundred fifty million people were lifted out of poverty.Eighty percent of the entire world’s poverty alleviation during that period happened in China.In other words, all the new and old democracies put together amounted to a mere fraction of what a single, one-party state did without voting.See, I grew up on this stuff: food stamps.Meat was rationed to a few hundred grams per person per month at one point.Needless to say, I ate my grandmother’s portions.So I asked myself, what’s wrong with this picture? Here I am in my hometown, my business growing leaps and bounds.Entrepreneurs are starting companies every day.Middle class is expanding in speed and scale unprecedented in human history.Yet, according to the grand story, none of this should be happening.So I went and did the only thing I could.I studied it.Yes, China is a one-party state run by the Chinese Communist Party, the Party, and they don’t hold elections.There assumptions are made by the dominant political theories of our time.Such a system is operationally rigid, politically closed, and morally illegitimate.Well, the assumptions are wrong.The opposites are true.Adaptability, meritocracy, and legitimacy are the three defining characteristics of China’s one-party system.Now, most political scientists will tell us that a one-party system is inherently incapable of self-correction.It won’t last long because it cannot adapt.Now here are the facts.In 64 years of running the largest country in the world, the range of the party’s policies has been wider than any other country in recent memory, from radical land collectivization to the Great Leap Forward, then privatization of farmland, then the Cultural Revolution, then Deng Xiaoping’s market reform, then successor Jiang Zemin took the giant political step of opening up party membership to private businesspeople, something unimaginable during Mao’s rule.So the party self-corrects in rather dramatic fashions.Institutionally, new rules get enacted to correct previous dysfunctions.For example, term limits.Political leaders used to retain their positions for life, and they used that to accumulate power and perpetuate their rules.Mao was the father of modern China, yet his prolonged rule led to disastrous mistakes.So the party instituted term limits with mandatory retirement age of 68 to 70.One thing we often hear is political reforms have lagged far behind economic reforms and China is in dire need of political reform.But this claim is a rhetorical trap hidden behind a political bias.See, some have decided a priori what kinds of changes they want to see, and only such changes can be called political reform.The truth is, political reforms have never stopped.Compared with 30 years ago, 20 years, even 10 years ago, every aspect of Chinese society, how the country is governed, from the most local level to the highest center, are unrecognizable today.Now such changes are simply not possible without political reforms of the most fundamental kind.Now I would venture to suggest the Party is the world’s leading expert in political reform.The second assumption is that in a one-party state, power gets concentrated in the hands of the few, and bad governance and corruption follow.Indeed, corruption is a big problem, but let’s first look at the larger context.Now, this maybe be counterintuitive to you.The party happens to be one of the most meritocratic political institutions in the world today.China’s highest ruling body, the Politburo, has 25 members.In the most recent one, only five of them came from a background of privilege, so-called Princelings.The other 20, including the President and the Premier, came from entirely ordinary backgrounds.In the larger central committee of 300 or more, the percentage of those who were born into power and wealth was even smaller.The vast majority of senior Chinese leaders worked and competed their way to the top.Compare that with the ruling elites in both developed and developing countries, I think you’ll find the Party being near the top in upward mobility.The question then is, how could that be possible in a system run by one party? New we come to a powerful political institution, little-known to Westerners: the Party’s Organization Department.The Department functions like a giant human resource engine that would be the envy of even some of the most successful corporations.It operates a rotation pyramid made up of there components: civil service, state-owned enterprises, and social organizations like a university or a community program.The form separate yet integrated career paths for Chinese officials.They recruit college grads into entry-level positions in all three tracks, and they start from the bottom, called Keyuan Then they could get promoted through four increasingly elite ranks: fuke, ke, fuchu, and chu.Now these are not moves from karate kids, okay? It’s serious business.The range of positions is wide, from running health care in a village to foreign investment in a city district to manager in a company.Once a year, the department reviews their performance.They interview their superiors, their peers, their subordinates.They vet their personal conduct.They conduct public opinion surveys.Then they promote the winners.Throughout their careers, these cadres can move through and out of all three tracks.Over time, the food ones move beyond the four base levels to the fuju and ju, levels.There, they enter high, officialdom.By that point, a typical assignment will be to manage a district with population in the millions or a company with hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue.Just to show you how competitive the system is, in 2012, there were 900000 fuke and ke levels, 600000 fuchu and chu levels, and only 40000 fuju and ju levels.After the ju levels, the best few move further up several more ranks, and eventually make it to the Central Committee.The process takes two to three decades.Does patronage play a role? Yes of course.But merit remains the fundamental driver.In essence, the Organization Department runs a modernizes version of China’s centuries-old mandarin system.China’s new President Xi Jinping is son of a former leader, which is very unusual, first of his kind to make the top job.Even for him, the career took 30 years.He started as a village manager, and by the time he entered the Politburo, he had managed areas with total population of 150 million people and combined GDPs of 1.5 trillion U.S.dollars.Now, please don’t get me wrong, okay? This is not a putdown of anyone.It’s just a statement of fact.George W.Bush, remember him? This is not a putdown.Before becoming Governor of Texas, or Barack Obama before running for President, could not make even a small county manager in China’s system.Winston Churchill once said that democracy is a terrible system except for all the rest.Well, apparently he hadn’t heard of the Organization Department.Now, Westerners always assume that multi-party election with universal suffrage is the only source of political legitimacy.I was asked once, “The Party wasn’t voted in by election.Where is the source of Legitimacy?” I said, “How about competency?”: We all know the facts.In 1949, when the Party took power, China was mired in civil wars, dismembered by foreign aggression, average life expectancy at that time, 42 years old.Today, it’s the second largest economy in the world, an industrial powerhouse, and its people live in increasing prosperity.Pew Research polls Chinese public attitudes, and here are the numbers in recent years.Satisfaction with the direction of the country: 85 percent.Those who think they’re better off than five years ago, 70%.Those who expects the future to be better, a whopping 82 percent.Financial Times polls global youth attitudes and these numbers, brand new, just came from last week.Ninety-three-percent of China’s GenerationY are optimistic about their country’s future.Now, if this is not legitimacy, I’m not sure what is.In contrast, most electoral democracies around the world are suffering from dismal performance.I don’t need to elaborate for this audience how dysfunctional it is from Washington to European capitals.With a few exceptions, the vast number of developing countries that have adopted electoral regimes are still suffering from poverty and civil strife.Governments get elected, and then they fall below 50 percent approval in a few months and stay there and get worse until the next election.Democracy is becoming a perpetual cycle of elect and regret.At this rate, I’m afraid it is democracy, not China’s one-party system, that is in danger of losing legitimacy.Now, I don’t want to create the misimpression that China’s hunky-dory on the way to some kind of superpowerdom.The country faces enormous challenges.Social and economic problems that come with wrenching change like this are mine-boggling.Pollution is one.Food safety.Population issues.On the political front, the worst problem is corruption.Corruption is widespread and undermines the system and its moral legitimacy.But most analysts mis-diagnose the disease.They say that corruption is the result of the one-party system, and therefore, in order to cure it, you have to do away with the entire system.But a more careful look would tell us otherwise.Transparency International ranks China between 70 and 80 in recent years among 170 countries, and it’s been moving up.India, the largest democracy in the world, 94 and dropping.For the hundred or so countries that are ranked below China, more than half of them are electoral democracies.So if election is the panacea for corruption, how come these countries can’t fix it? Now, I’m a venture capitalist.I make bets.It wouldn’t be fair to end this talk without putting myself on the line and making some predictions.So here they are.In the next 10 years, China will surpass the U.S.and become the largest economy in the world.Income per capital will be near the top of all developing countries.Corruption will be curbed, but not eliminated, and China will move up 10 to 20 notches to above 60 in T.I.ranking.Economic reform will accelerate, political reform will continue, and the one-party system will hold firm.We live in the dusk of an era.Meta-narratives that make universal claims failed us in the 20th century and are failing us in the 21st.Meta-narrative is the cancer that is killing democracy from the inside.Now, I want to clarify something.I’m not here to make an indictment of democracy.On the contrary, I think democracy contributed to the rise of the West and the creation of the modern world.It is the universal claim that many Western elites are making about their political system, the hubris, that is at the heart of the West’s current ills.If they would spend just a little less time on trying to force their way onto others, and a little bit more on political reform at home, they might give their democracy a better chance.China’s political model will never supplant electoral democracy, because unlike the latter, it doesn’t pretend to be universal.It cannot be exported.But that is the point precisely.The significance of China’s example is not that it provides and alternative but the demonstration that alternatives exist.Let us draw to a close this era of meta-narratives.Communism and democracy may both be laudable ideals, but the era of their dogmatic universalism is over.Let us stop telling people and our children there’s only one way to govern ourselves and a singular future towards which all societies must evolve.It is wrong.It is irresponsible.And worst of all, it is boring.Let universality make way for plurality.Perhaps a more interesting age is upon us.Are we brave enough to welcome it?