金融時(shí)報(bào):民主之路不容易

民主之路不容易

1990年以來，世界上民主國家的數(shù)量翻了一番。但有些新生的民主國家遇到了各種各樣的挑戰(zhàn)。馬丁·沃爾夫指出，成熟的民主政治從來都不是唾手可得的，四大要素缺一不可。比如說，任何派別都必須尊重民主的游戲規(guī)則：贏者不要妄想“通吃”，而輸者也應(yīng)通過民主程序爭取自己上臺(tái)的機(jī)會(huì)_……

測試中可能遇到的詞匯和知識(shí)：

universal suffrage['s?fr?d?] 普選

accountable to對(duì)……負(fù)有責(zé)任的

paternalism[p?'t??n(?)l?zm] 父愛主義，家長作風(fēng)

seizure 癲癇，抽搐

“loyal opposition” 忠誠的反對(duì)黨，英國下議院為第二大黨設(shè)有專門的頭銜:Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition

commonwealth ['k?m?nwelθ] 大眾福利，公益

antithesis[æn't?θ?s?s] 對(duì)立面，反面教材

loot [lu?t] 洗劫，搶奪

engender [?n'd?end?; en-] 使產(chǎn)生

salient ['se?l??nt] 突出的，顯著的

There is no easy path to democracy（1065 words）

Martin Wolf, FT chief economic commentator

Could Ukraine become a stable liberal democracy? The answer to this question has to be: yes. Will Ukraine become a stable liberal democracy? The answer to that is: we do not know. We do know that other countries have reached the destination. But we also know that universal suffrage democracy is a delicate plant, particularly in its early years. What has happened to young democracies in, say, Egypt, Thailand, Russia and Ukraine underlines that truth. Democracy is delicate because it is a complex and, in crucial respects, unnatural game.

My starting point is that government accountable to the governed is the only form suitable for grown-ups. All other forms of government treat people as children. In the past, when most people were illiterate, such paternalism might have been justified. That can no longer be true. As the population becomes more informed, governments that treat their peoples in this way will be less acceptable. I expect (or hope) that, in the long run, this will be true even of China.

The evidence is consistent with this optimism. According to the Polity IV database, almost 100 countries are now (more or less imperfect) democracies. This is double the number in 1990. In 1800, there were none. The number of true autocracies has also tumbled sharply, from around 90 in 1990 to about 20 now. Unfortunately, there has been a rise from about 20 to over 50 in the number of anocracies – regimes whose governance is highly unstable, ineffective and corrupt. Such regimes may be either crumbling autocracies or failing democracies. They are also vulnerable to outbreaks of armed conflict or forcible seizures of power.

What then are the underpinnings of a stable and successful democracy? The brief answer is that a democracy requires a double set of restraints: among the people and between the people and the state. These restraints rest on four features, all of them necessary.

First of all, democracies need citizens. Citizens are not only people who engage in public life, though they are also that. Above all, citizens accept that their loyalty to the processes they share must override loyalty to their own political side. Citizens understand the idea of a “loyal opposition”. They accept the legitimacy of government run by and even for their opponents, confident that they may have their own turn in time. Citizens, it follows, do not use the political process to destroy the ability of their opponents to operate in peace. They accept the legitimacy of dissent and even vociferous protest. They rule out only the use of force. Of course, some opponents are unacceptable – above all those who reject the legitimacy of democratic process. A country short of such citizens is permanently poised on the edge of break-up or even civil war.

Second, democracies need guardians, a term used by the late Jane Jacobs in her superb book, Systems of Survival. Guardians hold positions of political, bureaucratic, legal or military power. What makes them guardians, as opposed to bandits, is that they use their positions not for personal material advantage, but in accordance with objective rules or in favour of a notion of the commonweal. Viktor Yanukovich, Ukraine's ousted president, is as good an example of an antithesis to this as one can imagine. Yet his motives for seeking power were also the traditional ones. Throughout history, power and wealth were conjoined. The idea that the two should be separate was and, in many places, still is revolutionary. Mr Yanukovich believed instead in his right to loot and shoot. That is no basis for democratic legitimacy.

Third, democracies need markets. By markets we definitely do not mean the abuse of the power of state to turn public into private wealth, as happened throughout so much of the former Soviet Union. Business people who build their fortunes on such theft are no more legitimate than the politicians who helped them.

Properly functioning markets supported by a well-functioning state provide crucial underpinnings of stable democracy. First, they support prosperity. A society able to ensure a decent and reasonably secure standard of living is also likely to be a stable one. This then would be a society of trust in one's fellow citizens and one's economic future. Second, markets loosen the connection between prosperity and power. They make it possible for people to regard the outcomes of elections as important, but not as matters of life or death either for themselves or for their families. This lowers the temperature of politics from the burning to the bearable.

Finally, if all these complex, albeit essential, systems are to be effective, democracies need accepted laws, including not least constitutional ones (even if sometimes unwritten). The law, enacted and implemented in accordance with accepted procedures, shapes the rules of the political, social and economic game. A country that lacks the rule of law is permanently on the verge of chaos or tyranny – the unhappy fate of Russia over the centuries. Democracy then is about much more than voting. It is certainly not “one adult, one vote, once”. Nor, for that matter, is it “one adult, one rigged vote, many times”. It is a complex web of rights, obligations, powers and constraints.

Democracy is either the political expression of free individuals acting together, or it is nothing. Those who have won an election do not have the right to do as they please. That is not a true democracy, but elected dictatorship. Can outsiders help a people on the road towards democracy? Yes, they can. The helpful economic and political role of the EU in central and eastern Europe has shown that. Are backward steps imaginable? Yes, Hungary is showing just that.

Can bad neighbours blight hopes? Yes, that is possible, too.

We have indeed seen many failures along the path to democracy. Egypt is a salient one: it may have lacked too many of the necessary conditions for success. Today, we can see that Ukraine has created its third chance since 1991. But the country will need a great deal of help. The west has provided such help to others. But the country will itself also need to move towards quite new rules of the social game: it must engender true citizens, honest guardians, proper markets and just laws. Is such a revolutionary shift possible? I do not know. But of one thing I am quite certain. It is well worth the attempt.

請(qǐng)根據(jù)你所讀到的文章內(nèi)容，完成以下自測題目：

1.According to Wolf, democracy is not yet suitable for a country…

A.with huge amount of population.

B.with young population.

C.where most people are illiterate.

D.where paternalism is commonly accepted.

答案(1)

2.Democracy needs citizens, according to the article, “citizens” are people who…

A.engage actively in public life.

B.highly respect democratic processes.

C.have no party affiliation.

D.would form coalition government with opponents.

答案(2)

3.Among the following essentials of democracy, which one “lowers the temperature of politics from the burning to the bearable”?

A.Guardians of democracy.

B.Market economy.

C.Rule of law everywhere.

答案(3)

4.The word best summarizes the writer's description of democracy is?

A.delicate

B.complex

C.demanding

D.bearable

答案(4)

5.French philosopher Montesquieu has a famous remark, “constant experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it”, this article offers what remedy to this?

A.Universal suffrage.

B.Popularization of education.

C.Powerful and unselfish “guardians of democracy”.

D.“A complex web of rights, obligations, powers and constraints”.

答案(5)

* * *

(1)答案：C.where most people are illiterate.

解釋：沃爾夫說他的出發(fā)點(diǎn)是：只有民主制是適合成年人的。其他非民主制度都假設(shè)民眾是不能做出選擇，并且對(duì)此負(fù)責(zé)的。因此在很多國家，人們認(rèn)識(shí)水平的提高，讓非民主制越來越難以接受。

(2)答案：B.highly respect democratic processes.

解釋：沃爾夫的定義是：他們對(duì)民主程序的忠誠，超過對(duì)自己所屬政治派別的忠誠，也就是說不管選舉輸贏都能坦然接受，不會(huì)搞的你死我活。

(3)答案：B.Market economy.

解釋：作者解釋說，市場經(jīng)濟(jì)對(duì)民主的支持作用，一是提供繁榮和富足；二是讓財(cái)富不再嚴(yán)重依賴于權(quán)力。“有權(quán)力靠山就有一切，沒有權(quán)力靠山就什么也不是”的情況下，政治的熱度必然是“灼人”的。

(4)答案：A.delicate

解釋：四個(gè)詞都有道理，但作者在第一段兩次提到delicate（微妙的、精美的、易碎的）這個(gè)詞，并且后面結(jié)合最近的一些時(shí)事熱點(diǎn)來展開。

(5)答案：D.“A complex web of rights, obligations, powers and constraints”.

解釋：作者多次強(qiáng)調(diào)，Democracy is about much more than voting，不乏elected dictatorship這種情況。 rights, obligations, powers and constraints組成的復(fù)雜網(wǎng)絡(luò)，分別對(duì)應(yīng)在第三段所說的，“制約人與人，與制約民眾與政府”這兩大課題。