中国的治理方式已经被证明优于美式民主制吗？ [美国媒体]

Has the Chinese way of governing proved itself as a better way of governing than American-style democracy?

原始问题：中国特殊的治理方式已经被证明优于美式民主制吗？

Sam Qwato
Q. Has the Chinese way of governing proved itself as a better way of governing than American-style democracy?

问：中国特殊的治理方式已经被证明优于美式民主制吗？

Thanks for the A2A.
Short answer:

首先谢邀。
简短回答如下

(2a) Clearly so, in forklifting the Chinese people from the low baseline of a Communist command economy, in blx time, to present day economic development prosperity. An economic miracle. That said, this addresses the lower reaches of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. The Chinese ‘party state’ system juggernaut is well-suited to deliver in this economic context.
The American system would have brought mayhem to China, and moved the dial back eons.

很显然中国经济水准在GC主义指令型经济制度的规划下眨眼间就从很低的水平发展到了现在非常繁荣的水平。这简直是一个经济奇迹。也意味着中国在短时间内就解决了马斯洛需求层次理论中的较低层次需求。在这种经济背景下中国的经济体制确实很适合中国。
美国这套体制则会给中国带来伤害，甚至对经济发展有反作用。

(2b) Going forward, as the Chinese Middle Class compounds by leaps and bounds, the party will have to tweak the system, in consonance to addressing the higher range in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. These needs are abstract and more complex. Heroic macho juggernaut effort will not work. But, it will not be any system of governance, be it democratic or other, that we see on our planet today. The Chinese will wrought their own, guided by their 4,200+ years old civilization heritage (respect for authority, duties and obligations, primacy of education feeding into meritocracy and technocracy, shame-based morality, primacy of societal well-being, moderation, yin and yang balance), and then soberingly doused with high Pragmatism (an American invention, no less). Just as Deng turned economic Communism dizzily on its head, expect China to reinvent the same in the political dimension. China will yet surprise the world, as did Deng.

展望未来随着中国中产阶级的飞速崛起，北京也不得不调整整套体制以满足国民越来越高的生存发展需求。这种更高级的需求很抽象复杂。简单的强权管理再也行不通。但现有政治制度满足不了未来中国的需要，无论是民主制还是其他制度。中国人将在4200+多年文化遗产（尊重权威，重视责任和义务，优先通过教育培育统治精英和技术官僚，基于耻感的道德观，注重社会福利，强调中中庸的哲学观和阴阳平衡的世界观）创造自己独特的治理制度。但这一进程被强烈的实用主义打断了（美国人的发明，同样如此）。

If democracy, which model?

如果中国民主了，又该遵循哪套民主制？

That said, if hypothetically China wishes to take steps towards democracy, the worst democracy model that it can adapt from is the high-tensioned Fight Club psyche US Presidential System. That model is a quantum political philosophy leap from China’s ‘party state’.

话虽如此假设中国向民主进发，能模仿的最糟糕民主模式就是现在美国遵循的搏击俱乐部模式，几个总统竞选人像拳击手一样在拳台上竞争。这一模式也可能成为中国摆脱GC制后采用的制度。

The more suitable, if not temperately saner, model is the lower-tensioned UK Westminster system. Elect the leaders, extend them the mandated latitude to ‘do their job’ per election manifesto, per Social contract.
The Executive (Prime Minister) and the Legislature (parliament) waltz in lockstep.
The non-elected parliament upper house, the House of Lords, is a rubber-stamping entity. Contrast this with the august and powerful US Senate.
Non-activist Judiciary (Judicial activism).
(4) Democracy is in trouble. But, not in the way you’re thinking





如果嫌美国制度太激烈，则可以选用更温和的英国威斯敏斯特体制。领导人通过竞选上台，根据社会契约论在授权范围内完成自己的工作。
这套体制有几大特点：
主管行政的首相和立法机构（议会）携手共舞。
非竞选上任的上议院议员是橡皮图章。与此形成鲜明对比的是美国国会参议院权力强大。
不激进的司法制度。
民主制确实陷入麻烦，但它并不是你所想的那样。

Joseph Holleman, CEO of Magister Technologies Inc., Author of "The Prosperity Clock" book series. “繁荣的钟”系列丛书的作者，玛吉斯特科技公司首席执行官。

All political systems go through their own long term cycles of development and decline.

所有政治制度都在自身的不断发展和衰落中循环。

The Chinese system is experiencing an upward trend right now but they will likely run into problems in another 50 years or so when their economy becomes more dominant, their people wealthier, and wealth inequality increases. At that point they will likely find increasing corruption seeping into the ranks of the CCP due to complacency and corruption. And the Chinese people have never been reticent about publicly expressing their dissatisfaction when their government is not performing for them. And at that point expectations will likely be so high that underperformance is a virtual certainty.

中国体制目前正在走上坡路，但它也有可能在未来50年或者中国经济体制占据主导中国人越加富裕且贫富分化加剧时遇到问题。

The American system is currently in decline as has happened to virtually every democracy, republican or otherwise, in the history of the world.
The US system has devolved into an oligarchy disguised under the name “democratic republic” which is the usual pattern.

而美国体制则像当前其他很多民主制国家一样正面临颓势。
美国政治组织形式已经变成了以“民主共和”为名的寡头政治，但这也不罕见。

Now we are seeing a battle taking place in the US to determine whether or not it can hold itself together to continue to move forward as the world’s leader or whether its current system of republican democracy has to be radically changed.
What the US is experiencing now is similar to what happened when Protestants began to question the power of the Catholic Church which led to the Protestant Revolution.

现在我们能看到美国内部正发生一场战斗，美国人在纠结是否坚持以世界领导人的身份推进世界发展，也在怀疑当前的共和民主制度是否需要彻底改变。
现在美国面临的问题就好像历史上新教徒质疑意大利天主教领导基督教世界的正义性，并就此开始一场宗教改革一样。

Or when Rome found itself in crisis after the death of Tiberius (even during the reign of Tiberius) when Caligula, Nero and Claudius rose to power.
Rome survived and went on to even greater heights. The Catholic church was not so fortunate after the Reformation. It survived, yes, but was never again the dominant power that it was after the Reformation.
What happens next to the type and form of government in the US will be determined over the next few decades, perhaps less.

或者像提比略皇帝死后(甚至在提比略在任期间)，卡里古拉，尼禄和克劳狄乌斯开始上台的罗马一样发现自身陷入危机。
罗马挺过了难关并浴火重生走向另一个巅峰。天主教则没那么幸运在宗教改革运动影响下实力大减。它确实幸存了下来，但不再是宗教改革之后的基督教世界主导教派。
而美国会发生何种变化则会在未来数十年内揭晓，也许用不着那么长时间。

Mike Kayser, worked at Bolt, Beranek & Newman在博尔特，贝纳克和纽曼工作
In order to answer this you need prior agreement on what constitutes a good outcome.

为了回答这个问题，我们得首先就何种制度最优秀达成一致。

If you think in the conventional way, as pretty much everyone on Quora does, you’ll say that a good outcome means economic prowess, as measured by indicators like GDP. In that case, the Chinese system of “firm and fast-footed guidance by winners of a somewhat meritocratic process” does seem to be doing great.

如果你如quora上多数人一样以传统方式思考，会认为能带来以GDP衡量巨大经济收益的制度才是好制度。在这种情况下，中国“以某种程度上的精英决策做出坚定迅速发展指令”的制度确实表现良好。

But there is another view on human history that is at odds with this perspective. In the alternate story, overpopulation and technologism spiral together ever upward until life becomes unrecognizably abstract, alienating, and dehumanizing.

但历史上还有一种发展观与此相左。在另一套发展观中人口过剩和技术至上主义不断发酵并最终导致人类变得扭曲，疏远并最终失去人性。

If we consider this alternate story, we might believe that the fast moving society is the one that shoots themselves in the foot the most. Technological progress turns humans into abstract commodities and robotic consumers. We optimize “metrics” because it distracts us from the terrifying freedom of living our lives with clarity and authenticity. The end result is automated people who follow deadening routines, stare blankly into screens, and consume without feeling.

如果我们以这种发展观思考，我们相信过快发展会把自身带入囹圄。技术进步将人类转变成了抽象的商品和机器消费者。我们不断优化“质量标准”，因为它干扰威胁到了我们清晰真实的生活方式。结果是人变得机械化，因循守旧，只会茫然地盯着屏幕毫无感知地消费。

The society that is most captivated with optimization is the society that has most deeply lost its soul.
I don’t know which perspective is right. But I don’t believe it’s an easy question to answer.

最痴迷于完美无缺的社会恰恰是灵魂最迷茫无助的社会。
我不清楚哪种发展观才是对的，但我知道这不是个容易回答的问题。



Is this a picture of marvelous advancement — or of a tragic alienation from reality?

这是非凡进步的表现还是与现实悲剧性的疏离？

Adrian Lee Dunbar, China Hand 中国通
China has been very successful and the United States has been exceptionally successful. But China’s system has been used only for early stage developing countries. I would say this system is better if your economy is just now developing, but it is totally untested for an advanced economy.

中国一直很成功，美国则是非常成功。但中国体制只适用于处于发展早期的发展中国家。我能说的是如果你的国家处于快速发展期这套制度确实更合适，但是否试用与发达国家还不可知。

All of the answers on this page presuppose a Chinese governmental system highly reliant on democratic countries for support. For example, the recent row over ZTE shows Chinese industry reliant on high-tech imports from the United States. Any system that relies on the American system to be successful cannot be said to have surpassed the American system. It can only be said to be a good way to catch up to the American system.

这一页所有答案都表明中国治理体系高度依赖于民主国家得到支持。例如最近的中兴事件表明中国工业体系高度依赖美国进口产品。任何依赖美国体制才取得发展的制度怎么能说优于美国呢？只能说是种追赶美国的好制度。

Second, it is not necessarily wise to boil down success to the GDP growth rate figure.

其次，将GDP增长总结为经济成功并不明智。

If you look at absolute GDP growth rate per capita, the United States is at $1,300 per year and China is at I understand about $800/year recently. China’s GDP per capita currently stands at just 15% of the United States’s. The absolute gap between each country’s GDP grows slightly each year, even while the percentage gap shrinks. Then there are environmental factors. New York’s air is clean and its tap water is pure. Beijing’s air will kill you and its tap water will also kill you unless you purify it. For ease of doing business, a USA limited liability company may cost $500 to form properly, but one in China might cost $5,000 or more, or in hours worked terms maybe a half day of an American business owner’s time or a month of a Chinese business owner’s time. These figures are all improving, but it just shows how advanced the United States still is.

如果你看人均GDP增速，美国年均有1300美元而据我所知中国只有800美元。现在中国的人均GDP只有美国的15%。两国间GDP增速的绝对差距每年都在小幅增长，虽然差距变小了。还有环境因素也要考虑到。纽约的空气干净澄澈自来水就是纯净水。北京的空气则会杀死你，北京的自来水除非净化处理否则也会对你造成伤害。至于做生意，美国有限公司可能每单生意成本有500美元，但在中国可能要5000美元甚至更多。而且工作周期问题上，美国可能只要半天中国可能就要花一个月。这些数字成本都在不断改善，但依旧能显示出美国的先进程度。

All this tells us is, both systems are highly successful, but the United States GDP figures are still doing better than elsewhere.
However, due to the diminishing marginal utility of money, quality of life in China improves faster than anywhere else.
Third, how do you even answer such a question? Almost all public sector Chinese data is classified a secret. How do you even analyze the effectiveness of a system that has no FOIA act?

所有这些都告诉我们中美两套制度都很成功，但美国的GDP数字成绩还是比其他国家优秀。
然而由于货币的效用递减定律，中国的生活质量提升速度远超其他国家。
第三点，你到底该怎么回答这类问题？所有中国的公共部门数据都是机密。你要怎么分析一个信息不自由体系的有效性？

John Wong, worked at China在中国工作
a2a.
Before answering this question well, we have to clarify what we are talking about.
(Don’t just take my words for it, do some checking)

谢邀。
在回答问题前，我们必须先澄清到底在讨论什么问题。（别只听一家之言，要有点自己的思考）

Godfree Roberts, Ed.D. Education & Geopolitics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst (1973) 马萨诸塞大学阿莫斯特分校（1973）教育与地缘政治专业博士
Yes, the Chinese way of governing has proved itself as a better way of governing than American-style democracy–but we won’t see all the proof until June 1, 2021, when China will become the world’s first xiaokang society in which no one is poor and everyone receives an education, has paid employment, more than enough food and clothing, access to medical services, old-age support, a home and a comfortable life. Here’s a snapshot of that process:



是的，中式治理方式已经被证明优于美式民主制，但只有到2021年7月当中国成为世界唯一一个小康社会，不再有穷人，人人都有受教育的权利，有工作机会，衣食无忧，拥有医疗服务保障，养老保险能过上舒适惬意的生活时才能证明这一论点。以下就是这一经过的掠影：

As you can see, they’re eliminating poverty while American-style democracy is creating poverty:

如你所见，他们在削减贫困而美式民主制正在创造贫困。



As a result, they trust their government a lot more. Even their rich people keep their money at home:

结果是他们更相信他们的政府。即使富人也把财富保存在国内。



They know it’s less corrupt than American-style democracy because it spends less of their money:

他们知道自身体制比民主制更少腐败，因为运营这套体制的成本更低。



And more of them own their own homes:

而且大多数中国人都有自己的房子。



And, unlike American-style democracy, most of them like the direction their country is headed:

而且与美国人不同，大多数中国人支持当前国家走的道路。



The Five Year Plans makes investing–from buying a car (electric?) to a house (new subway?) to stocks and shares (new industries?)–more predictable, and raises public support. Harvard’s Tony Saich reports that ninety-six per cent of Chinese are satisfied with the national government and Edelman’s 2016 Report says ninety percent of them trust it. World Values Surveys found that eighty-three percent think the country is run for their benefit rather than for the benefit of special groups–a remarkable testimonial given that inequality in China, though lower than American, is higher than France’s.
That’s why it’s fair to say that the Chinese way of governing has proved itself as a better way of governing than American-style democracy, don’t you think?

五年发展计划使得投资——无论是买车（电动车？）还是买房（新地铁？）还是买股票债券（买新产业股票？）都更精准，也更能获得公众支持。哈佛大学的Tony Saich研究报告显示96%的中国人对北京感到满意，而Edelman的2016年研究报告也发现90%的人相信北京。世界价值观报告发现83%的中国人相信国家为人民利益服务而不是为某些利益团体服务。有显着证据表明中国的不平等程度低于美国但高于法国。
这也能解释为什么中式治理方式已被证明优于美式民主制，你不这么觉得吗？