为什么中国人对中国制度的偏爱超过西方自由民主制？ [美国媒体]

Why do Chinese prefer the Chinese system of government over Western-style liberal democracy？

为什么中国人对中国制度的偏爱超过西方自由民主制？





Nicholas Krapels, lives in China
Answered Apr 4, 2016
I don't know that Chinese "prefer" their system over any other potential system at all. It's just that the Chinese economy is working extremely well for most Chinese people. Most people just figure "Well, whatever they're doing I like. I'm eating better, my bank balances are growing, and my family is secure and safe from a variety of social, political and economic woes. And that's all I care about!" Who can blame them? I'd argue that most of the 7 billion people in the world probably think right along those lines give or take a few degrees of enthusiasm here and there.
Mostly, Chinese people like anything that is Chinese. It's like that old Mike Myers SNL skit where he was the boss of a store named "All Things Scottish!"
This tendency is not restricted to Chinese culture. Most cultures or subcultures will choose the familiar over the unfamiliar when talking about what they like. But in China, the force is particularly strong.
The welcome slogan for Myers' fictional store is apropos of the Chinese mentality towards their own cultural products:
Welcome to All Things Scottish! If it's not Scottish, it's crap!
Image copyright NBC.
In the skit, everything in All Things Scottish!, as you would expect, was from Scotland. Kilts. Bagpipes. Plaid. The whole 9. Customers who just randomly walked in from the mall almost never bought anything. All the Scottish customers got super excited when they walked in and saw all the weird things from their childhood they thought they'd never again see in America. They bough the plaid kilts, the bagpipes, the rotten fish products, everything.
China is kind of like that today, although it is less about being fiercely proud about being "Made in China" and more about being approved by Chinese.
Just ask your Chinese coworker, "Why did you buy that phone?" Most likely, it was because their friend had it.
Why did you invest in that stock? Because my friend did.
Why did you go on that vacation to that place? Because my Chinese friend said it was great!
Why do you think this or that thing is weird? Because I've never seen a Chinese person wear, do, or like this or that.
If there's any country in the world where social proof and social convention carries a huge amount of importance, it's China.
Thus, if most people in China are doing better year after year, then Chinese people will, on the whole, prefer their system over any other. And why not? There might have been a little something that happened awhile back, but most young Chinese these days are hardly aware of it.
Instead, the focus is on the bigger picture. Young Chinese today are part of one of the luckiest generations in world history. Only America's own Greatest Generation, those that survived WWII and benefited from the post-war boom, even holds a candle to them. For the past 27 years, the Chinese economy has gone pretty much straight up, evolving from a developing country also-ran to literally the largest economy in the world.
This kind of remarkable growth is more likely to occur efficiently and quickly in a directed economy. Many commentators have made this point, including most prominently Thomas Friedman, an old China hand credited with influencing Xi Jinping's famous "Chinese Dream" synonymous with his term of leadership. I myself tend to think about the differences between whatever system China has and "liberal democracy" in economic speak, granted that I mostly refer to the "liberal" part of this pair.
In the short run, a "visible hand" is more effective in generating economic growth than an "invisible hand".
IN THE LONG RUN, really we have yet to see. Honestly, 27 years in the grand scheme of capitalist history is a relatively limited dataset. It may be that India's more market liberal-y approach, which has seen India's GDP lag China severely though they were relatively equal 30 years ago, may be more successful when measured in 60 or 70-year economic cycles. The American model for economic development may in fact prove more sustainable over the long arc of history. Who knows?
In the era of liberal democratic hegemony, there has never been a country with the characteristics of China, so large and populous with vast sums of potential. Its uniqueness may explain why socialism, capitalism, and other forms of philosophy always tend to come with "Chinese characteristics." There is something about the place that just demands influence.
The "visible hand" is no different. As opposed to the all-beneficial "invisible hand" envisioned by Adam Smith in 1776 (I always think how ironic that Wealth of Nations was published just 4 months before the Declaration of Independence), China's current economic policy system sets clear goals which, by their very nature, emphasize certain industries and goals over others.
However, it should be noted that the invisible/visible construct is not purely binary. The "invisible hand" is never fully ghosted; the "visible hand" is never fully decipherable.
Case in point: The Five Year Plan (5YP) system is not as strict as it sounds. It is merely a frxwork designed to be flexible enough to prioritize investments among a variety of industries and metrics. Every 5 years, the government sets the direction of the economy, choosing sectors to emphasize for development and setting stretch goals that are often blown past. But sometimes, the metrics change to reflect more sober expectations, and the data comes in or about what the 5YP had wanted. Of course, there is a bit of self-fulfilling prophecy here ("Whoa! You're the government. You own 1/3 of economic production and control significantly more. Wow! You set a goal and made exactly like that! How could you not? Of course you did"). But there is also a good bit of analysis that goes into setting those numbers in the first place.
The technocrats in the Chinese economic leadership are that good. Sure, they may err from time to time (a stock market crash here, a property bubble there) but, on the whole, they have long maintained a demonstrably capable hand on the Chinese economy. In the early 1990s, Deng Xiaoping famously set out a goal to quadruple the economy in 10 years. Initially, no one thought the government could achieve such a mark.
China got there with nearly 2 years to spare.
To look at how the Chinese style of governance, how the "visible hand" can shape specific industries, one need look no further than the high-speed rail industry. The startling difference between the development of this industry in mainland China versus its development in the the US state of California clearly demonstrates one of the unavoidable and extremely limiting internal contradictions of market liberalism - that the individual pursuit of self-interest somehow always maximizes growth of society as a whole.
Here is an industry where China had not entered into at all prior to 2000. By 2010, the country had laid nearly 4,000 kilometers of high-speed track, nearly double that of the historical leader in the space, its neighbor Japan.
Meanwhile, the California High Speed Rail Authority was commissioned way back in 1996 and has yet to lay a single kilometer of track. Its first project, currently under construction and "projected" to be finished by 2022, is a length of track around 500 kilometers connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco. The bullet trains would travel approximately 350 km/h and make the trip in 2 hours and 40 minutes. The cost: $68 billion and counting.
A similarly ambitious project in China covered the 1,300-km jaunt from Beijing to Shanghai. The Beijing-Shanghai High Speed Railway began construction in 2008 and was completed 3 years later. Not only was the line completed in less than half the time of the California project, despite being 2.6x the length, but the costs for construction were less than half as well - $32 billion. California? Well, its project is far from completion and is already projected to exceed cost estimates by 30%. In a recent ranking of international high-speed train networks, the United States ranked #19 out of 20, below Turkey and Uzbekistan.
China? From a standing start in the industry 13 years ago, it now ranks #3 on the same survey. Its line coverage well exceeds that of any other nation, accounting for 60% of the total distance in the world. And state-owned behemoth China Railway Construction Corp Ltd (CRCC) has become a major player in the international infrastructure industry.
Way to go, liberal democracy!

我认为相对于任何其他制度，中国人根本不“偏爱”自己的制度。现在的情况只不过是，对于大多数中国人而言，中国经济运作的极好而已。大多数人只会指出：“好吧，他们无论做什么我都喜欢，我吃得更好，我的银行存款也在增加，我的家人有安全保障，不受各种社会、政治和经济困境的影响。这就是我关心的所有事！”谁又能责怪他们呢？我打赌全世界70亿人中的大多数可能都会认为这些话没错，可能某些地方的人或多或少还抱有一定程度的热情。
中国人喜欢的东西多半都是中国的。就好像老麦克梅尔斯的SNL短剧里的一个老板，把他的商店起名叫“一切都来自苏格兰”。
这种倾向不仅存在于中国文化。大多数文化或者亚文化在谈论他们喜欢什么的时候，都会更多选择熟悉的东西，而非不熟悉的。而在中国，这种力量特别强大。
梅尔斯虚构的那个商店的欢迎标语可以恰如其分的形容中国人对他们自己的文化产物的想法：
“欢迎来到一切都来自苏格兰商店！如果不是苏格兰来的，都是垃圾！”
想象一下NBC的版权。

在这部短剧里，“一切都来自苏格兰”里的所有东西，正如你想的那样，都来自苏格兰。苏格兰短裙、风笛、苏格兰长披肩，所有的东西。从商场随便进来逛的顾客几乎都不买东西。而当苏格兰顾客走进来，看到所有那些奇怪的东西——他们从儿时起就以为再也不会在美国看到它们，他们所有人都会超级的兴奋。他们买下短裙、风笛、腐烂的鱼制品，所有东西。
今天的中国就有点这个意思，虽然对“中国制造”产生的激烈自豪感不太多，但是受到中国人的认可很多。
你去问一下你的中国同事：“你为什么买那个手机？”最有可能是因为他们的朋友有这个手机。
为什么你投资那只股票？因为我朋友投了。
为什么你在那个地方度假？因为我的中国朋友说那里很棒！
为什么你认为这个或那个东西很奇怪？因为我从来没有看到一个中国人穿、做或者喜欢它们。
如果有一个国家，那里的社会认同和社会共识十分重要，那个国家就是中国。
所以，如果中国大部分人一年过得比一年好，那么总的来说中国人对他们制度的喜爱会超过其他制度。为什么不呢？可能有一点点东西发生了暂时性的倒退，但当今大多数年轻人很难意识到。

这个国家的重点反而放在全局上面。今天中国的年轻人是世界历史上最幸运的一代人。只有在美国自己的最伟大时代，那些在二战中幸存下来并受益于战后繁荣的人，才能与他们相比。在过去的27年，中国经济几乎是直线上升，从一个发展中国家的落选者演变为世界上最大的经济体。
这种令人瞩目的高效快速的发展更有可能发生在计划经济体。很多评论家都提出了这个观点，包括最重要的托马斯弗莱德曼，他是一名老牌中国通，被认为曾发挥影响力推动今上提出着名的“中国梦”，这也是后者领导生涯的代名词。我个人比较愿意思考中国制度与自由民主在经济方面的区别，当然我大部分指的是这一对词中“自由”这部分。
在短期内，“看得见的手”在实现经济增长方面要比“看不见的手”更加有效。
从长远而言，我们真的看不到结果。老实说，在资本主义的宏伟历史中，27年只是个相对有限的时间段。可能是因为印度采用更加自由的市场方式，虽然两国在30年前的经济相对平等，但现在已经看到印度的GDP严重落后于中国，如果在60-70年的经济周期中衡量，印度的方式或许会更加成功。也许将来会证明，美式的经济发展在历史的长河中更加的可持续。谁知道呢？

在自由民主占据主导的年代，从未出现哪个国家有中国的特征，如此的幅员辽阔人口众多，以及庞大的潜力。它的独特性也许能够解释为什么社会主义、资本主义和其他形式的哲学总是能够伴随着“中国特色”。这个地方有些东西需要受到影响。
“看得见的手”没有什么不同。它与亚当斯密在1776年（我一直认为国富论仅仅比独立宣言早4个月发表是很讽刺的）展望的所有有益的“看不见的手”相反，中国当前的经济政策体系，通过他们本身的性质设立了明确的目标，来强调特定的行业及其目标。
然而，值得注意的是，可见/不可见的概念并不是纯粹的二元论。它仅仅是一个框架，被设计的足够灵活，优先在各种行业和标准之间进行投资。每5年，国家就会设立经济发展的方向，选择重点发展的行业，设置挑战性的目标，这些目标经常超越过去。但偶尔也会对标准作出的修正，以反映更加冷静的期望值，而且5年计划需要的数据被收集起来。当然，这里还有一点自我实现的预言（“哇！你是国家。你拥有1/3的经济生产，并且将控制更多，很值得瞩目。哇哦！你设立了一个目标，并且做出来也恰好是那样！怎么可能做不到？当然会做到！”）但是也些分析者称，那些数字从一开始应该就设置好了。
领导中国经济的技术专家是那么的厉害。当然他们会一次又一次的犯错（这里发生一次暴跌，那里出现房产泡沫），但是总的来说，他们确实长期有力的掌控了中国经济。在1990年代早期，总设计师设立了一个着名的目标，要求在10年内使经济翻四番。一开始，没人相信国家能够实现这一纪录。
但中国提前2年就实现了这个目标。

为了研究中国治理制度如何运转，“看得见的手”如何塑造特定的行业，人们只需要看看高速铁路行业。中国大陆这一行业的发展与美国加利福尼亚州的发展状况存在令人吃惊的差异，清楚地表明了自由主义市场不可避免的和存在极限的内在矛盾。在当今的中国大陆，个人追求自身利益总是与社会整体的发展密不可分。
这是一个中国2000年之前不曾涉足的行业。到了2010年，这个国家已经铺设了接近4000km的高速轨道，几乎是该领域曾经的引领者即其邻国日本的两倍。
而同时，加利福尼亚高速铁路当局早在1996年就获得委托，但是连1km的轨道都没有铺好。它的第一个工程，现在正在建设当中，“预计”到2022年完工，它的长度大约500km，连接着洛杉矶和三藩市。子弹列车的行驶速度大约为350km/h，全程耗时2小时40分钟。造价共计680亿美元。
中国由一个类似的充满野心的工程，从北京到上海，覆盖了1300km的短途旅游线路。北京上海高速铁路在2008年开始建设，三年后完工。这条线路不仅完工时间比加利福尼亚工程的一半还要短——考虑到其长度是后者的2.6倍，而且其建造成本也比后者的一半还要少，只有320亿美元。加利福尼亚工程？好吧，这个工程还远未完工，而预计支出已经超支30%。在最近的一次国际高速铁路网的排名中，美国在20个国家里排名19，低于土耳其和乌兹别克斯坦。
而从13年前在这个行业立定起步的中国？它在这个调查中的排名是第3。它的线路覆盖远远超过任何其他国家，并且总里程占全世界的60%。而且国有的巨兽中国铁路建设总公司（CRCC）已经成为国际基础建设行业的主要参与者。
自由民主真行！

-----------

Randall Burns, Economic Journalist at VDARE.com（VDARE网的经济记者）
Answered Mar 10, 2016
Many people in _any_ existing government prefer the government they live under to other alternatives.
Serious governmental change is hard.  We are only recently  starting to see public opinion polls develop in china.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-...
http://www.economist.com/news/ch...
MY read on these:
a) many Chinese feel their government is making steady progress
b) corruption is a bigger immediate issue than lack of democracy.
The thing is: China is making gradual improvement on both corruption and democracy when the US is heading the wrong direction on both issues..
The  big democratic trend is that government officials really are being expected to pay attention to polls. That may not be quite like western, representative democracy but that does not mean it isn't real.
Singapore provides China a living example of a one party state that has made serious progress on corruption.
One important feature of the Chinese system is that it does sext for rather highly competent senior officials. I am NOT an expert on the Chinese system.  My perception based on what I have read and seen: 
Democratic institutions in China are still pretty weak and fragile.
However,  the CPC has some strong republican aspects.   The barriers to CPC membership have gradually gotten to be less. The CPC has real elections and real political debates. The big barrier to CPC membership these days seems to be  a pretty heavy expectation of civic engagement.  I was rather surprised when I noticed that overall voter turnout in the last CPC election was _higher_ in the last US off year election. That strikes me as a serious accomplishment.
Any government has a combination of democratic, republican, meritocratic and sometime aristocratic, plutocratic or oligarchic institutions.  The Chinese system is fairly strong in their republican and meritocratic aspects. I  think if they strengthen their democratic institutions  they will have a much stronger government than they do now, but I expect if this happens it will be gradual and will not happen along conventional western lines.  I think the role of polling will become more important and formal in time. I can also see China making use of Citizens'  Assemblies for specific purposes and gradually expanding their role. China already has parties other than the CPC, and I can imagine those parties getting an expanded  role in the government with similar expectations of civic engagement of members to what the CPC has now.  The example of Singapore is putting serious pressure on China to reduce corruption but the scale of China means that may happen slowly. China is rather different today than it was under Mao. I am conviced 50 years from now, it will be something even more different.

相比别的选项，所有现有制度下的大多数人都更青睐他们自己所在的国家。
政治上的重大改变是很难的。我们最近才开始在中国看到公众意见的投票。
我对这些情况的看法：
a）很多中国人认为他们的国家正在稳步前进
b）相对于缺乏民主，腐败是更大更直接的问题

新加坡为中国提供了活生生的例子，即一党制国家在治理腐败方面可以做出重大进步。
中国制度的一个重要特征是它确实挑选了相当高素质的高级官员。我并非中国制度的专家。我的观念都来自阅读和看到的东西：中国的民主制度依然相当脆弱。
然而，CPC也有强大的共和主义方面。CPC成员的障碍最终变得越来越少。CPC有真正的选举和真实的政治辩论。当前对于CPC成员的强大阻碍似乎是公民参与的相当沉重的期许。当我注意到上届CPC选举中的整体投票率甚至比美国上年选举高，这让我相当的惊讶。我觉得这是个重大的成就。

任何国家都是多种元素的组合，包括民主、共和、精英治理，偶尔还有贵族统治、财阀或者寡头政治。中国制度在共和和精英治理方面很强大。我认为如果他们加强他们的民主制度，他们的国家会比现在强大的多，但我希望这种改变是渐进式的，而且不要沿袭西方传统模式。我认为投票的角色迟早会变得更加重要和正式。我也能看的中国在特定目标上采用公民大会，并最终扩展它的作用。中国已经拥有除CPC之外的党派，我能够想象那些党派在国家中的作用越来越大，我也期待公众参与者能够进入CPC的角色。新加坡的例子向中国施加了很大的压力来减少腐败，但中国的规模意味着改变会缓慢发生。现在的中国与太祖时代相当不同。我相信50年后的变化会更大。

-----------

Greg Blandino, works at Beijing, China
upxed Apr 12, 2016
A2A-
The current system of government is rooted in thousands of years of successful governance in China. Democracy is a johnny-come-lately with only a couple hundred years of continuous application.
Secondly, Chinese have a very different history in regards to revolutions and rebellions. They are very aware that overthrowing a bad government often just leads to a worse one.
There is thus a sense of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" through large swathes of the populace. For the first time in history, 100's of millions of Chinese are living a comfortable, middle-class lifestyle comparable to that of people around the world. To change to a Western-style liberal democracy would require a revolution, a revolution that might see millions die and result in a situation no better than the current one.
Of course there are many who want democracy as well, this answer is mostly just a compilation and generalziation of discussions I've had. You'll also here "Chinese are too volatile, fractious, and uneducated for democracy" a lot. The assumption then is as Chinese material situation improves, so will the quality of the people along with the general education level.

中国当前的国家制度扎根于数千年的成功统治。而民主不过是仅仅持续应用了几百年的新手。
第二，在革命和造反方面，中国的历史截然不同。他们很清楚推翻一个坏国家通常只会带来一个更坏的。
因此大部分平民都有一种“如果没有坏，那就不要修”的观念。历史上第一次，十多亿中国人以中产阶级的方式舒适的生活，可以与全世界的人们比肩。如果想要转而采用西式的自由民主制度，需要一场革命，革命可能会造成数百万人的死亡，结果也不会比现在更好。
当然也有很多人想要民主，这个回答大部分只是我对之前讨论的汇总和概况。“中国人过于易变、易怒、教育程度不足，所以不适合民主”，你也会听到很多这种论调。这个假设是随着中国的物质条件改善，人们的素质和普遍的教育水平也会得到改善。

Greg Burch
Mar 9, 2016
I wouldn't change a word -- exactly my perception based on decades of study and personal experience.

我不能增删一字，这与我数十年研究和个人经历的观察结果完全相同。

Greg Blandino
Mar 9, 2016
Great minds think alike!
Of course so do not-so-great minds, but I'm a glass-half-full kind of guy.

英雄所见略同！
当然我的见解没那么高深，因为我只是个半瓶水的家伙。

Magnus W. Magnusson
Apr 12, 2016
You might not know that ancient Athens as well as Republican Rome were democracies. Actually Rome was very successful until it became an Empire/Dictatorship.
Furthermore the argument is fallacious, as it can be used against almost any change. "We have lived for a 1000 years under our feudal overlords, democracy is just a new and unproven thing" could also Europeans have claimed before Europe became democratic.
Also - how do you measure 'successful governance'? The Chinese history is filled with man-made disaster on an epic scale.
I agree though to the second part of your answer. Most people are more interested in living a comfortable and happy life, rather than always straining for high ideals.

你可能不知道古代雅典和罗马共和国也是民主制。实际上在进入帝制/独裁制之前，罗马是很成功的。
此外你的说法是错误的，因为它几乎可以用来反对任何改变。“我们已经在封建领主下生活了1000年，民主只是个新玩意，而且未经证实。”欧洲人在变成民主制之前也可以这么说。
还有你如何衡量“成功的统治”？中国历史充满了史诗级的人为灾难。
但是我同意你回答的第二部分。大多数人更加在意舒适和幸福的生活，而不是追求崇高的理想。

Greg Blandino
Apr 12, 2016
A) I'm speaking to attitudes I've heard from Chinese people. You don't have to convince me democracy is great, I already think so.
B)  Feudalism was failing. If it ain't broke, don't fix it is the principle at play in China. China is certainly not broke.
C) To the Chinese, the existence of a continuous state for thousands of years is a sign of successful governance. Everyone's history is filled with man-made disasters, it's what man does. China's recent history is certainly worse, but that would be an argument to switch systems in say 1961, not 2016.

A）我说的是我从中国人那里听到的态度。你不必试图说服我民主很伟大，因为我也是这么认为的。
B）封建制失败了。如果它没有坏掉，那就不要修。这是中国行之有效的准则。而且中国当然没有失败。
C）对于中国人而言，这个国家延续了几千年，这个客观存在就是成功统治的标志。每个国家的历史都充满了人为的灾难，这是人类的天性。中国最近的历史当然更加糟糕，但争论应该转换制度的应是1961年，而不是2016年。

Magnus W. Magnusson
Apr 12, 2016
re B) we can discuss for a long time whether feudalism was failing or not. To many historians though the rise of democracy was not due to any economic failure of Feudalism, rather that times and ideas had changed and people did not accept a God-given overlord anymore.

回答B)对于封建制是否失败这个问题，我们可以讨论很久。很多历史学家认为：民主制度的崛起不是因为封建制度在经济上的失败，而是因为时代和观念已经改变，人们不再接受君权神授。

re C) continuous is a relative word. Would we also consider the existence of the Roman Empire continuous? (either from a mythical 762BC until the fall of Byzantium or even until the end of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806?). When you speak about 'thousands of years', do you see the continuity to even before the 'warring states' period?

回答C）延续是个相对的概念。我们是否可以认为罗马帝国的延续也是客观存在？（从神秘的公元前762年直到拜占庭的没落，甚至直到1806年的神圣罗马帝国？）当你说到“数千年”，你是不是把延续的说法看的甚至比“战国时代”更早？

-----------

Greg Blandino
Apr 12, 2016
This is utterly besides the point. Do Chinese people think China is failing? No. Did the sans-culottes think the Ancien Regime was failing? Yes. Whether it was or not is really besides the point, although government bankruptcy and food riots seem to suggest it was.

这完全不是重点。中国人是否认为中国失败了？没有。长裤汉（法国大革命中人们对普通民众的称呼）是否认为大革命前的制度失败了？是的。除此之外，无论它是否真的失败，但国家破产和食物暴乱都似乎暗示了这一点。

Do Chinese people think that they have a continuous history? Yes. Do they think that is a sign of successful governance? Yes. Does that have anything to do with the Roman empire? Not at all.

中国人是否认为他们的历史是延续的？是的。他们是否认为那是成功统治的标志？是的。他们的情况跟罗马帝国有没有关系？没有。

Again, I am providing an insight into the attitudes and viewpoints expressed by Chinese people I have interacted with. I am baffled by why you are trying to convince me these assertions are incorrect. I make no claim that these views are accurate, just that they are held.

我重申一遍，我是在分享一些观察，来自与我交流的中国人的态度和观点。你一直努力说服我那些主张是错误的，这让我很困惑。我并没有声称那些观点是正确的，而只是他们持有的观点。

-----------

Magnus W. Magnusson
Apr 16, 2016
Fundamentally I agree with your second and third paragraph. (regarding the first, interesting discussion but possibly not needed).

我从根本上同意你的第二段和第三段。（而第一段，讨论很有趣，但可能没必要）。

I agree with you that currently Chinese people prefer their system because they see it as a successful system of governance. Where our misunderstanding arose from (as I see it) is that in your original answer you said that China is a successful system of government. You there did not refer to 'in the eyes of the populace'. This, I think, is open to challenge, also depending on the definition of 'success'. Again, I agree that the Chinese mostly see it as a successful system. (as an analogy, if you were to claim that Homeopathy is successful, I would challenge you. If you tell me that Homeopaths see Homeopathy as successful, I would not challenge that).

对于现在中国人更喜欢他们的制度，是因为他们把它看做成功的治理模式，我同意你的这个看法。我们的误解起源是（就我看来），在你最初的回答中你说中国的统治制度是成功的。你当时并没有提到“在大众的眼里”。我认为这是有待商榷的，也依赖于对“成功”的定义。我再次同意大多数中国人认为这是个成功的制度。（作为类比，如果你当时宣称那种顺势是成功的，我也会挑战你的观点。如果你告诉我，那种顺势是把顺势看作成功，我就不会有异议了。）

I might add though that this was not always the case that Chinese believed their system to be successful. The Chinese reformers of the 19th century thought that the Chinese system needed not just to be amended but to be replaced. The Taiping Rebellion as well did not just aim at establishing a new emperor but was aiming for a new system as well. And the same applied to the founders of the CCP (though obviously that thinking changed).

我可能想的有点多了，中国人相信他们的制度是成功的，我认为也许并不总是这样。中国19世纪的改革者认为中国的制度不仅仅需要修正，而是需要被替换。太平天国运动的目的也不仅是为了建立一个新帝国，而是也旨在建立新的制度。这种想法同样也适用于CCP的建立者们（然而那种想法显然改变了）。

-----------

Richard Bourne, I lived and worked in China for over 4 years for a variety of multinationals and local companies. I speak f...（我在中国居住和工作已达4年，在多家跨国公司和本地公司工作过）
Answered Mar 23, 2016
Not sure 'the Chinese' have a definite preference on government.  Most are politically disengaged. 

不确定中国人对他们的制度存在明确的偏好。大多数人都远离政治。

When you do talk to them, the idea of what the government should do for and require of its citizens, you get a picture that is somewhere between a liberal democracy and the state controlled oligarchy that the PRC has with a few divergent elements. 

当你跟他们谈论“国家应该为公民做什么而且要求公民做什么”这个问题时，你会得到一个印象，即中国是一个介于自由民主和寡头控制的国家，PRC存在一些发散的政治元素。

Few people in China would honestly tell you their government is perfect, many would not even say their government is better than other countries.  Largely though this is a case of just not knowing enough.  Many Americans will tell you their form of government is better, but few know enough to even begin to prove the assertion. 

中国很少人会诚实的告诉你说他们的国家是完美的，很多人甚至不会说他们的国家比其他国家更好。而大体上是因为这个问题并未经过充分思考。很多美国人会告诉你他们的国家形式更好，但很少人知道足够的东西来证明这个论点。

The only really uniform feeling is resistance to change.  You can read that as "the devil I know is better than the devil I don't" or you can look at the last century, every political change in China has been massively costly and destructive. 

唯一真正统一的感觉是变革的阻力。你可以将它解读为“我认识的魔鬼比我不认识的要好”，或者你可以回顾上世纪，中国每次政治变革都付出了高昂的成本，造成了大量破坏。

-----------

Subee Swift, works at Smartphones（从事智能手机工作）
Answered Mar 9, 2016
Every time I saw the news about India ,Philippines and so on ,every time I compare the situation of the Egypt，Syria five years ago and nowadays ,I told myself : our system of government is not so bad and Western-style is not so nice,It is the people in government that are important and we can not change our system in a hurry until the proper time.

每次我看到印度、菲律宾等国的新闻，每次我对比埃及、叙利亚五年前和现在的情况，我都会告诉我自己：我们的国家制度没有那么坏，西方的模式也不是那么好，国家里的人才是重点，我们不能贸然的改变制度，直到出现恰当的时机。

-----------

Joel Ivory, History enthusiast, pragmatic idealist, in China for 5 years（历史爱好者，务实的理想主义者，在中国5年了）
Answered Mar 9, 2016
Why do western people prefer liberal democracy? the answer is the same: the propaganda machines of our respective countries/hemispheres push one system or another onto us. Churchill said 'democracy is the worst form of government...except for all the other ones we've tried.' A fairly solid argument surely, heavily propagandised. But the people on the receiving end of Western colonial aggression and exploitation can of course be expected to disagree - they've been sacked, enslaved, dragged into drug wars, plundered and much of this continues today. So you can imagine a few people thinking 'democracy' and/or 'all things western' aren't all that awesome. Mao Zedong & co. started with this thought, amog others, and I'm sure the White Purge did nothing to change their minds.

为什么西方人更喜欢自由民主制？回答是一样的：我们尊敬的国家的宣传机器把一个或另一个制度强加给我们。丘吉尔说“民主是最坏的国家形式，除了所有那些我们已经尝试过的。”当然是相当坚实的论点，被国家机器大肆的宣传。但是不要期望承受西方殖民侵略和剥削的那些人同意，他们被洗劫、奴役、卷入毒品战争和掠夺，很多一直延续至今。所以可以想象很少人会认为“民主和/或西方所有的东西”有多么好。太祖及其同伴开启了这种想法，传播给其他人，我肯定白色净化对于改变他们的想法无能为力。

As for everyday Chinese, they've about as much choice (and apathy actually) about their system as we do ours, except if they don't like it then they've usually a bit harder time leaving because of Western diplomatic restrictions...which come about because of the long history Chinese people have of illegally immigrating, which has not all that much to do with their system of government as some might think.

对于每个中国人，他们对于制度的选择（实际上很冷漠）差不多跟我们一样多，除非他们不喜欢。然而由于西方的外交限制，他们在离开时通常有点困难……之所以出现这种情况，是因为长期以来，迁移对于中国人而言是非法的，而这与他们的统治制度的关系不像某些人认为的那样大。

-----------

Magnus W. Magnusson, Living in China for 20 years and counting, speaking the language and reading it（在中国住了20年，）
Answered Apr 12, 2016
No-one has ever asked them. And the CCP will not allow survey about this.

没有人问过他们。CCP不允许这方面的调查。

From talking to Chinese one gets the impression that most prefer the Chinese systems of governance. But one should not forget that Westerners mostly talk to the winners of the system, the English speaking ones, the ones who live in 1st tier cities.

从与中国人的交谈中，我获得一个印象：大多数中国人更喜欢中国的治理模式。但不应该忘记的是，与西方人交谈的主要是这个制度中的胜利者，居住在一线城市的说英语的那些人。

A more interesting indicator might be that Taiwan, which is Chinese as well, choose Democracy.

一个更加有趣的指标可能是台湾，它也是中国的，却选择了民主。

-----------

Anix Orov
Answered Apr 25, 2016
Neither the US, nor the Chinese have the proportional representation which is common in Europe. That means the political systems in both countries are very similar: the most important political decisions happen inside the parties rather than in the general election. For instance, now we can see that the choice between Hillary Clinton and Sanders is more important in the US politics than between other candidates even though they are members of the same party.

美国和中国都不是欧洲常见的比例代表制。这表示两国的政治制度很相似：最重要的政治决策都发生在党内，而不在普选中。例如，现在我们可以看到，在美国政治制度中，希拉里克林顿和桑德斯之间的选择比其他候选人之间的选择更加重要，即使他们是同一个党派的成员。

And instituting a new party with a chance of getting to the legislature is as hard in the US as it is in China.

在美国建立一个有机会进入立法机关的新党派，与中国一样困难。

-----------

Quora User, worked at China（在中国工作）
Answered Mar 29, 2016
The question should be modified to be more specific. You could put "normal chinese" or "citicans in china" in the question instead of "Chinese". Not every Chinese has the same idea; actually, some "prefer the Chinese system of government", but some not. People who are rich and dislike Chinese government will flee to western countries, so they are no more Chinese citizens （they are still ethnical Chinese). Chinese citizens who stay in China have various ideas too. Some of them prefer western democracy, especially middle class and the rich because democracy can keep their wealth safe. Instead, some officers prefer Chinese system of government because their benefits depend on it, and some poor people love it because they believe the communist style brings equality to them. (The equality here is among normal people instead of officers or extreme rich people who have deep connection with the government!). Finally, it is about stability, and we all know what happened after Arab Spring.

本问题应该修正得更加明确。你应该把“普通中国人”或者“中国公民”放到问题中取代“中国人”。并不是每个中国人的意见都一样。实际上，某些人“更喜欢中国的治理制度”，而某些人并不。那些富有且不喜欢中国治理制度的人会逃到西方国家，所以他们不再是中国公民（但依然是华人）。留在中国的中国公民也有各种不同的意见。其中一些更喜欢西方民主，尤其是中产阶级和富人，因为民主使他们的财富安全。而某些官员更喜欢中国的治理制度，因为他们的利益依赖着它，某些穷人热爱这种制度，因为他们认为共产主义模式给他们带来公平。（这里的公平是指普通大众，而不是与国家关系极深的官员和极其富有的人！）最后，中国的治理制度会带来稳定，我们都知道阿拉伯之春以后发生的事。