（二）中国的治理方式已经被证明优于美式民主制吗？ [美国媒体]

Alan Chiu, I read many modern Chinese history books 已阅读很多现代中国历史书
I’ll compare the two using 4 criteria:

我将以4条标准对两者做对比：

1.       Efficiency in creating public good. China had the advantage since the power of government is unchecked. e.g. demolition of housing for public works is fast because nobody can hold it back with lawsuits or environmental concerns. I suppose this is the characteristic that attracts most attention.

提供公共产品的有效性。中国在这方面有优势，因为权利不受限制。例如中国为公共项目拆除房屋的速度很快，因为没有人能通过诉讼或以环境问题为由保住房子。我认为这是最引人关注的一点。

2.      Fairness. US had an advantage because different interests are represented by different representatives, and the rule of law means minority rights are protected by law. I’ll include human right here, but it can be a separate item.

公平性。美国在这方面有优势，因为不同利益代表代表不同利益团体，法制也意味着少数人群的权利也能受到法律保护。我也将人权涵盖其中，虽然人权可以单开一节论述。

3.      Transparency and oversight. US has advantage here. Freedom of press to expose government waste or bribery. The wealth of elected officials can’t be kept secret. Rent-seeking is more rampant in China.

透明度和监督。美国也有优势，言论自由意味着公民可以揭露政府腐败受贿。竞选上任的官员财产也随时收到监督。权力寻租在中国则更普遍。

4.      Political stability. There are two aspects of political stability: stability of bureaucrats, and stability of the system. China had a complex system to promote bureaucrats, so the competency of bureaucrats are high. American system to elect officials don’t necessarily elect competent bureaucrats. On the other hand, American system can adjust faster by electing anyone, e.g. Trump, into office, while China’s system encourages conformity and less flexibility in the long term. So in terms of system stability, US had an edge.

政治稳定性。有两方面的政治稳定性：官员任选的稳定性和制度本身的稳定性。中国拥有一套复杂的制度用以遴选官员，所以官员的能力毋庸置疑。美国竞选官员的体制则不一定能选出有能力的官僚。另一方面，美国体制能通过竞选迅速调整适应事态变化，就如特朗普当选总统，而中国体制则长期鼓励一致性和较少的灵活性。所以在体制稳定性方面，我们有优势。

Jamie Cawley, Author of "Beliefs and the world they have created. Lives in China 信念和他们创造的世界作者，居于中国
Of late China has clearly had a better economic performance as well as looking a little more dignified.

近来中国经济明显向好，看起来也更有尊严了。

At the last US presidential election voters were given the choice of two people they both largely disliked (each chosen by a tiny unrepresentative minority). One was elected with 26% of possible votes, substantially fewer than his opponent. Correct me if necessary, but this seems to bear no relation at all to the rule by the people that is what Democracy means.

而在最近的美国总统竞选中，两个竞选者都不受选民欢迎（每个都是由少数不具有代表性的人选出来的）。其中一个得到26%选票的有可能当选，实际上仍大大少于其对手。如果有必要请纠正我，但这似乎和民主制宣扬的由公民管理国家没什么关系。

If polls mean anything the Chinese government is consistently much more popular than the US government.
If you, like me, Jawaun, think democracy is important we need to get organised: Abolish Elections NOW. Democracy for all.
And I am not joking.

如果民调结果有什么意义的话，那也只能说明北京比美国政府更受本国国民欢迎。
如果你像我一样认为民主制很重要，则我们应该组织起来废除选举。这样才会有真的民主。
而且我没开玩笑。

John R, former Clergy, Hippie, Construction, Family Therapist (1963-2017)嬉皮士，建筑专家，家庭心理医生
Contrasting with the U.S. which has clearly fallen behind and has failed to respond well to the needs of its citizens, a comparison can be made with our system of choosing leaders. Everybody here can vote, but barely half ever do. And only half of that decide who we can vote for during primaries.

与此相比美国的表现表明美国已经落后，不能对公民需求做出积极回应。遴选领导人的方法也许可以作为参照，每个美国人都有权利投票，但几乎只有半数会去行使投票权。一半的人就决定了我们可以在初选中投票给谁。

And when we vote, there are multiple candidates unknown by the vast majority. Yard signs and slanted advertising is all they can go on, and that only for a few on the ballot.

而且在投票中有太多候选人不被大众了解。竖标志和打广告是他们唯一能做的宣传方法，而这种方法对获选也无甚益处。

China’s system suggests limiting most voting to politically active cadres, open to all but required to do public service and in contact with governing individuals. Periodic votes of the general population on a few people or for approval/disapproval should be preserved as a check against poor choices by the cadres.

中国的制度则将投票限制在少数活跃干部上，候选人对所有人开放但需要进行政务锻炼并与管理人员进行接触。普罗大众定期对少数人进行投票以此作为干部考评。

Few of us have the time or interest to vote well and with the collapse of local media, even fewer have the necessary information. So organizing to create knowledgeable and responsible voters is a promising direction out of the current malaise.

美国人几乎没时间或兴趣去投票，而且随着地方媒体的衰落少有人能获取候选人信息。因此组织起来培育一批见识渊博有负责心的投票者才是解决当前困境的唯一有希望方法。

Min Yan, Knows China and experienced a lot of the world 对中国有所了解也经历了很多
It only means that the current Chinese system is working better in China than the American style democracy in US.

这只能说明当前中国体制比美式民主制更适应中国国情。

This proves that there is no universal system that is inherently superior to all the others. One has to re-examine all the conventional wisdom about democracy. Perhaps Chinese way in China is closer to the real meaning of democracy than the American way in US.

这也表明没有哪套政治体系天然优于其他体系。人们必须重新审视对民主制的内涵。也许中式民主制比美式民主制更贴近民主的本意。

I am not advocating US to copy Chinese way, because this would suggest that Chinese way is the universal way, that I dismissed the existence above. However, the election based system may learn one thing from the Chinese way: Shouldn’t it be required that the candidates have some minimal background? For example, presidential candidates should have enough experience in governing enough people for long enough period. This does not deny people’s right to be elected, only that you need to work up step by step, and gained enough qualification.

我并不赞成美国学习中国模式，因为我不认为中式民主制拥有普世意义。然而建立在竞选之上的美国体制也许可以向中国学习：候选者应不应该至少拥有一些从政背景？例如，总统候选人应该拥有大量人口的长期治理经验。这并没有否认人们当选总统的权利，只是需要你一步一个脚印获得竞选资格。

Mas Miwa, former Engineer at Hughes Space and Communications休斯空间通信公司前工程师
It certainly has proven itself on economic and political efficiencies. China’s citizens might have complaints about personal issues and issues with the government, but as a whole they like what their government is doing and the direction they are headed. American democracy has much going for it, but the idealism gets watered down with reality.

在经济发展和政策执行两方面已经证明了中国治理体系的有效性。中国公民也许对与北京相关的私人事务有所抱怨，但总体来看他们支持北京的行事和前进方向。美式民主制有很多事情要做，但显然理想主义被残酷现实击倒了。

I think China can plan and implement better and more efficiently. They can make long range plans and stick to it. As long as the leader has the best interests of its citizens and the country, China’s socialist capitalist system seems to work well for them.

我认为中国做计划和执行计划的能力更强。他们能做出长远规划并坚定不移地执行。只要领导人始终为人民和国家谋福利，中国特色社会主义看似就很适合他们。

“A broad majority of Chinese (89%) think things are going well with their economy, making them the happiest on this measure compared with all other 43 countries surveyed this year. And they believe things will only get better. Eight-in-ten say the economy will continue to improve over the next 12 months. And 85% think the younger generation will be better off financially than their parents. This optimism stands in stark contrast to findings in Europe and the U.S., where widespread majorities believe their children will be worse off going forward.” China’s government may be communist, but its people embrace capitalism

“大多数中国人（89%）认为本国经济一片向好，在这方面的调查中中国人与其他43个国家公民相比最幸福。而且他们相信未来只会越来越好。80%的人认为未来12个月中国经济会继续增长。85%的年轻一代经济状况会比父辈更宽裕。这种乐观态度与欧洲美国受访者形成了鲜明对比，多数两地受访者认为他们孩子的未来只会更糟。”中国也许倾向于GC主义，但其国民倾向于资本主义。

Glenn Lee, chaotic rebel混乱的反叛者
The Chinese way of governing is definitely better for China and the American way of governing is definitely better for the US.

中国治理方式明显比美国好。

The Chinese system is out of the gestation period and is on the up leg of the cycle; it seems more directed, confident, and purposeful. The US system is still in the gestation period, it’s revolution having been caused by the arrival of the post war baby boomers. The US system seems chaotic because it is still regenerating itself. This chaos creates a demand for a stronger defense against potential foreign aggression.

中国治理体系已经脱离了酝酿阶段正处在上升周期。它看起来更有指导意义，更自信也更有目的性。美国治理体系仍处于酝酿磨合阶段，它本身是一场战后婴儿潮带来的政治革命。之所以美国体制看起来很混乱是因为它仍在不断更新再生。这种政治混乱也拉紧了美国人防御外国潜在政治渗透的敏感神经。

Different societies, as with different cultures, can not be compared with one another. The purpose of government is to serve the people; as long as the people is happy with their government, their government is doing a good job.

不同社会优于不同文化，不能互相做比较。政府的任务是服务国民。只要国民对政府满意，就表明政府干得不错。

Roland Bruynesteyn
Some good and knowledgeable answers here. A few observations:
at what point in time do you judge a certain ‘way of governing’? The Cultural Revolution in China and Vietnam for the US were not the best of times
and, even apart from concrete results at certain points in time, underlying (philosophical) principles, traditions, attitudes and laws are the cultural foundation on which a (local) civilization is founded. What would you prefer on a gut level? And on a rational level?
on the whole, people tend to stay in their home country and may not be the best to judge their system: it’s simply the only system they’re used to. More interesting perhaps is to check how many people from abroad want to come to a certain country. Apparently, the US are way more popular than China for people to move to

以下是我的一些观察思考：
你以哪个时间段为参考评价“治理方式”的优劣？中国的文革和美国的越战对两国来说都不是什么好时候。
而且即使是特定时间取得的特定成果也建立在哲学思想，文化传统和司法体系等文化文明根基之上。在本质上你支持哪个因素？在理性层面上你又支持哪个？
总体来说人们都倾向于待在母国，所以他们自己可能不是评价自身制度的最好人选，毕竟他们习惯了这套体制。更有趣的是有很多来自国外的人用脚投票希望到特定国家定居。显然在这方面美国比中国更受欢迎。

Xuan Su, I like to think I understand what democracy is better than you我认为我比你们更理解民主
I would say No. In fact, it’s really futile and pointless to compare “way of governing” and say which is better. There is really only “working” or “not working” when it comes to way of governing.

我认为并非如此。实际上简单对比“治理方式”更有效徒劳无功。评价治理方式的标准只有“有用”和“没用”。

American style works for America. it works because that style of government fit the culture background and history of the country. Otherwise, American people would have found a different way of governing some time ago. Is it perfect and everyone is happy about it? Any honest person would have told you no. The last election was a clear evidence that there are issues.

美国体制适合美国，因为这套体系适应美国的文化历史背景。此外美国人未来也许也会发展出一套完全不同的治理方法。但新体制会完美无缺每个人都满意吗？任何诚实的人都会对你说不。上次大选清楚地表明确实存在一些问题。

Chinese style works for China. It works because that style of government fit the culture background and history of the country. Otherwise, Chinese people would have found a different way of governing some time ago. We made two changes of government in the last century, so we would have if the system clearly doesn’t work. Is the Chinese style perfect and everyone is happy about it? Of course not. Even the Chinese leadership would have told you they have a lot of issues to resolve.

中国体制则适合中国。也因为这套体制适应中国的历史文化背景。此外中国人也可能发展出另一套体制。上个世纪我们进行了两大改革，所以如果现在的体制不起作用我们早就进行新的改革了。中国体制也完美无缺每个人都满意？显然也不。中国也毫不讳言他们还有很多问题需要解决。

So let’s not get into the pissing contest of “we are better because we do this or that”. The government is functioning, is in general not getting in our way, and it is not going downhill. Then let’s consider it our good luck and try to keep it that way.

所以我们还是别陷入“因为如此所以我们更优秀”的无聊辩论。目前运行的政府并没有妨碍我们，也没有让我们走下坡路。那么就把它看做难得的好运气继续保持吧。

Katie Pedro,VP Operations, China at KSV eSports (2018-present) KSV体育用品中华区执行副总裁
A2A. It proved it is very rewarding to design and formulate your own path to success other than blindly follow other countries success story. Every country has its own unique challenges and strength. The government of the country need to know itself first and foremost, learn from others, but choose your own path. What Chinese way demonstrated is a methodology, not a model. Deng Xiaoping described the methodology rather nicely: feel the stone when wade the rapid river. He is saying, take time to exam the situation, one step at a time, experiment to make sure each step is solid.

谢邀。事实已证明独立规划本国发展道路远比忙于照抄已有成功经验回报更丰厚。每个国家都有自身独特的挑战和强项。政府首先需要了解自身，再向他国学习，但需要自己选择发展道路。中国的成功经验只代表一种方法论，而不是一种成熟的发展模式。邓对中国这一发展方法论的描述很生动：摸着石头过河。他的意识是，按部就班一步一步验证以保证稳固发展。
​
Dave Kaminsky
America is richer, with more allies, better relations with its neighbors, a better environment, and higher Human Development Index Scores. American culture is more widespread. Chinese have immigrated to America by the millions. 10s of millions of Chinese live in extreme poverty as defined by the UN. America eliminated extreme povert decades ago.

美国更富裕，盟友更多，与邻国关系更好，环境也更好，人类发展指数也更高。美国文化传播范围更广。也有数百万中国人移民到美国。而还有数千万中国人活在联合国定义下的绝对贫困生活中。而美国在数十年前就解决了贫困问题。

America’s people are wealthier, earn more, enjoy cleaner air, water, and land at higher rates, eat safer food and their infants drink safer milk formula. They of course live longer. They enjoy more civil rights and legal protections against the government. Their workers die at lower rates to accidents, can more easily organize independent unxs, and work less hours while earning more.

美国人更富裕，薪水更高，享受更安全清洁的水，空气和土地，吃更安全的食物，他们婴儿喝的配方奶粉也更安全。他们活得更久，也享有更多公民权利和法律保护。他们的工伤意外死亡率也更低，可以更轻易组建独立工会，工作时间短但时薪更高。

American media is free to report negative stories, it’s people are free to express their opinions online without censorship, and every political view can find some media outlet to say their piece. Americans can and do vociferously criticize their leaders and their leaders actions. This sometimes gives a negative impression of how things are in the US as the media tends to report negative stories. In China, positive feel-good stories are the norm.

美国媒体更勇于报道负面消息，公民也有权利公开表达意见而不用担忧网络审查，每种政治观点都有自身的传播平台。美国人可以大声批评领导人和执政得失。这又给人一种对美国的负面印象，即在美国媒体往往会报道负面新闻，而在中国报道正面新闻才是常态。

Despite one’s opinion of Trump versus Xi, from a results point of view, American-style democracy is more successful than Chinese autocracy. If and when China and Chinese beat America and Americans in these metrics, one could argue the Chinese system is superior.

尽管人们对特朗普和中国领导人的看法不同，但从结果来看美式民主制比中国权威制更成功。如果中国能在以上指标击败美国，才能毫无疑问地证明中国体制更优越。

John Charles Harman,B.S Kinesiology & Sports, University of California, Los Angeles洛杉矶加利福尼亚大学人体运动学体育专业学士
Nope. Though China has raised a large percent of their citizens out of poverty and squalor they DO not have the liberties we have in our Democracy. The USA, nor other Western Democracies did not have to steal intellectual property to make their nations great.

不，尽管中国已经带领很多国民脱贫致富摆脱了悲惨的生活，但他们并不享有我们所拥有的自由。美国和其他西方民主国家不需要窃取知识产权来让自己的国家变得伟大。

Anonymous（匿名答主）
No. Authoritarian governments always outperform republican ones over the short term when they’re in a good period. The problem with them, and the reason why democracy is the worst system except for all the others, is that there is no way to throw the bums out of power in an authoritarian state when they’ve lost their touch short of violence or transition to a republican form of government. And all rulers lose their touch eventually, since power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

不，权威主义政府短期内总是能比共和政府表现得优秀。他们的问题以及民主制为什么是最糟糕的体制的原因都是当权威体制向共和体制过渡时，政府失去暴力无法再掩盖社会问题。所有统治者最后都会远离大众，因为权力带来腐败，绝对的权力带来绝对的腐败。