type
status
date
slug
summary
tags
category
icon
标签
参考标签
原文发表于兔主席/tuzhuxi公众号，原文地址： https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/vKNopvk2trFCaUeLY-dOLQ
刚在外网发了一系列帖子，总共25个推文，分享了一下“自由民主”和选举政治的历史特性和运行条件，为什么欧洲长成这样，以及为什么美国是最不适合这个体制的。美国科技右翼掌权以来，社交媒体上的信息审查和屏蔽少了（以前动辄封号），这些声音也就可以发表出去了。
由于行文的字数和篇幅高度受限，主要为了传播，所以言简意赅，点到即止，没有展开。仅供参考哈。
1.西方自由民主和选举政治作为一种特定的制度与解决方案，源于并兴起于独特的历史背景，也就是历史上的欧洲。这种制度在特定条件下运行效果最佳，而这些条件往往存在于几个世纪之前。这些因素如下：
（1）人口有限——最好是几万、几十万，至多几百万人口；有限的人口规模缩短了人们之间的“距离”，使个体之间能够相互熟悉、彼此信任。
（2）领土面积适中——而非幅员辽阔或地域广袤。地理距离与信息交流、生活方式以及心理亲近程度息息相关。简而言之，社区规模越小，人们之间的关系就越紧密。
（3）人口具有高度同质性。这里所说的“同质性”，首先指的是种族、语言、宗教、共同历史、价值观、生活方式，甚至性取向等——这包括了所有那些容易将人们划分成不同群体的因素。
（4）社会是有机且共生的，在这种社会中，人们对人际关系、团结、共同价值观、公共生活、规则、规范以及某种等级制度和社会结构（即便在民主制度下）有着基本且普遍的理解与维护。
（5）经济相对“封闭”，可以与外国进行商品贸易，但资本和人口流动受限；只有在相对封闭且静态的经济环境下，一个社会才能坐下来解决劳资关系和社会分配问题。
（6）外国或外部干扰及影响有限；来自“全球化”或国际地缘政治的因素极少。这确保了自由政策能在政治、经济和社会方面实现相对稳定。
（7）共享事实（信息对称）。人们阅读相同的报纸，对基本事实达成共识，并基于共同的、普遍的认知来进行辩论。
2.正是在这些（理想）条件下，西方自由民主才能实现最佳、有效且可持续的运转。这个制度本身并没有问题，只是它需要特定条件才能运行并发挥其优势。
3.自康德以来的欧洲大陆启蒙哲学将民主视为自主性和自由的最大化；它不仅满足个人需求，还延伸至“民族”层面，涉及“民族自治”，进而形成了民族国家（与自由民主）相契合的一套概念
4.正如前面所讨论的，要让“自由民主”妥善且有效地发挥作用，最好具备一些必要条件，而这些条件的本质实际上就是“同质性”。要解决这个问题，就需要构建一个定义明确、界限清晰的“民族”概念。
5.接下来要做的就是“找到自己的民众”，界定“我们”（本国人）和“他们”（外国人）之间的界限，然后建立一个“民族国家”。在一个“民族”内部总会存在少数群体，而且这往往会引发种族冲突和种族清洗的倾向。
6.而在现实世界中，政治、经济、社会、文化以及民众总是在不断演变和变化。这几乎总会导致同质性受到侵蚀，进而使民族国家和自由民主的运行出现问题，削弱其合法性和问责性。
7.历史上看，非民主制度的解决办法往往是种族清洗；自由民主制度的解决办法则是：
（1）反移民与同化；
（2）进一步分裂成更小的民族国家，或者从那些规模更大、缺乏责任性、不民主的集团（例如欧盟）中脱离出来，以此来完善制度。
8.如果你觉得欧洲的地图很奇怪——为什么有这么多小国家？为什么它们无法形成一股统一的政治力量？你已经找到答案了：源于启蒙自由主义，欧洲各国分裂成更小的政治单元以提高民主效率和功能
9.那为什么欧洲现在政治如此不稳定呢？民粹主义、极左和极右势力兴起，出现“非自由民主”的趋势又是为什么呢？你也能找到答案了：因为经济全球化、大规模移民、文化多元化以及在数字时代“共享事实”的缺失。
10.这一切都可以归于一点：同质性的丧失。几个世纪前那些欧洲人（“死掉的白人男性”）所设想的“自由民主”的理想条件难以维持，且已不复存在。这一制度在运行和取得成效方面举步维艰。
11.这也揭示了那些“历史终结论”支持者，如弗朗西斯·福山之流，在哲学和思想层面极其幼稚的一面，他们认为自由民主和新自由主义代表了某种终极治理模式，却未能理解二者之间内在的矛盾。
12.此前，我们讨论了民主的理想条件。如果满足那些社会政治因素，民主就能作为一种稳定器发挥作用，缓解冲突、促进社会进步、适应经济和技术变革。战后的西方就是这种情况。
13.但如果没有那些条件，自由民主和选举政治就会加速社会分裂和政治极化，导致更大的不稳定。例如，尽管人们大多关注经济全球化，但社交媒体、人工智能/自动化对民主构成的威胁要大得多。
14.而且人们应该思考一下，当资本、技术、大企业和政治联合在一起时会发生什么——这对普通公民意味着什么？更有可能是乌托邦，还是反乌托邦呢？
15.最后，让我们来谈谈美国。由于各种历史上的“巧合”和“偶然因素”，美国已经演变成一个拥有3亿多人口的庞大且异质化的社会。在西方文明中，它是一个相当独特的异类，肯定不能代表常态。
16.在约250年前建国时，美国或许还满足民主的理想条件。而异质性/多样性问题——例如针对美洲原住民、黑人以及女性——是通过剥夺他们与白人男性平等的投票权来“解决”的。
17.但250年后的今天，在如今这个复杂得多的环境下，这些条件在美国已不复存在。不难得出一个不幸但很有可能正确的结论：美利坚合众国是最不适合自身制度的国家。
18.如果你看到美国的民主面临僵局、运转失灵、动荡不安、两极分化、极端主义、“非自由民主”抬头，甚至有内爆的危险，同时又无力解决其深层次的政治和社会问题，那可不要感到惊讶。
英文（原文）
1.Western liberal democracy and electoral politics, as a specific system and solution, stemmed from and arose in unique historical context, namely the historical Europe. such a system works best under specific conditions, often present centuries ago.These factors are:
1）limited populations - preferably tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or a few millions at most; a limited population size shortens the "distance" between people, enables familiarity and trust among individuals.
2) Modest territorial size - not a vast or geographically sprawling. Similarly, geographical / physical distance is tied to information exchange, lifestyle, and psychological proximity. In short, the smaller the community, the closer people are.
3)Populations as highly homogenous. By “homogeneity”, above all, we mean ethnicity/race, language, religion, shared history, value, way of life, even sexuality, – all the factors that tend to separate people into groups.
4)Society being organic and symbiotic, where there is a basic and prevailing understanding and upholding of relationship, unity, shared values, and communal life, rules, norms and a certain hierarchy and social structure (even in a democracy)
5)A relatively “closed” economy, there can be trade in goods with foreign countries, but limited capital and population movement; only in a relatively closed and static economy, a society can “sit down” and reconcile capital-labor relations and social distribution issues
6) Limited foreign/external interference and influence; minimal factors from “globalization” or international geopolitics. 1/ This ensures a liberal policy achieves relative stability in politics, economy, and society.
7)Shared facts (information symmetry). people consumed the same newspapers, agreed on basic facts, and conduct debated based upon shared, common understandings.
2.It is under these (ideal) conditions, a western liberal democracy could function optimally, effectively and sustainably. There is nothing wrong with the system, just that it requires certain condition to operate and realize its merits
3.The Continental Enlightenment philosophy since Kant then saw democracy as maximizing autonomy and freedom; it not only meets individual needs, but also extended to “nations”, to "national autonomy", and that gives an alignment concept of nation-state (with liberal democracy)
4.And as discussed earlier, for "liberal democracy" to function properly & effectively, you better have those necessary conditions, & the essence of which is in fact “homogeneity”. To solve the problem, you need to construct a clearly defined and well-bounded idea of “nation”
5.The exercise is now “find your people”, define the boundaries between “us” (nationals) and “them” (non-nationals), and then establish a “nation-state”. There are always minorities within a “nation” and oftentimes give rise to tendency for ethnic conflicts and cleansing
6.And in the real world, politics, economics, society, culture, people always evolve and change. it almost always leads to the erosion of homogeneity, which subsequently problematize the function of nation-state and liberal democracy, reducing its legitimacy and accountability
7.Historically, a non-democracy’s solution could be ethnic-cleansing; a liberal democracy’s solution is:
1) anti-immigration and assimilation
2) further divide into smaller nation-states or dissociate from larger, unaccountable blocs (e.g. EU), so as to optimize the system
8.If you find Europe’s map odd—why so many small countries？why they're unable to become one unifying political force—you got the answer: rooted in enlightenment liberalism, European nations are fragmented into smaller polities to enhance democratic efficiency & functionality
9.And why is Europe having so much political instability now? The rise of populism, far-left and far-right, the trend of “illiberal democracy”? you got the answer too: because economic globalization, mass immigration, culture pluralism, loss of “shared facts” in the digital age
10.It all comes down to one thing: the loss of homogeneity and coherence. The ideal conditions for “liberal democracy”, envisioned by those Europeans （“dead white men“）centuries ago, are hard to sustain and no longer exist. The system struggles to function and deliver results.
11.And this tells you the uttermost philosophical and intellectual naivety of those “end-of-history” proponents, Francis Fukuyama and alike, believing that liberal democracy AND neoliberalism represents some ultimate model of governance, while failing to understand the inherent tensions between the two
12.Earlier, we discussed the ideal conditions for democracy. If those socio-political factors are met, democracy can function as a stabilizer to mitigate conflicts, promote social progress, accommodate economic and technology shifts. This was the case for the post-war West
13.But w/o those conditions, liberal democracy may actually accelerate social division & political polarization, leading to greater instability. E.g. while much attention is on economic globalization, social media, AI/automation poses a much greater threat to democracy
14.And one should consider what happens when big capital, advanced technology, big corporations, and politics align together? what does this mean for the average citizen? Would it more likely to be a utopia, or a dystopia
15.Lastly, let’s turn to the US. on top of various historical “coincidences” & “contingencies”, the U.S. has evolved into a vast, heterogeneous society of 300+ million people. Within Western civilization, it is a rather unique outlier, certainly not representative of the norm
16.And when it was founded c.250 years ago, ideal conditions for democracy might have been met. The heterogeneity/diversity issues—e.g. Native Americans, Black people, and women—were “solved” by denying them equal voting rights with white men.
17.But ~250 years later, in today’s vastly more complex environment, these conditions no longer hold in this country. It is tempting to draw the unfortunate but likely true conclusion, that the United Staters of America is the least suited country for its own system.
18.If you see U.S. democracy facing gridlock, dysfunction, unrest, polarization, extremism, a rise in illiberal democracy, or even implosion, while unable to solve its deep political and social issues, do not be surprised.
- 作者:TZ
- 链接:https://musingpages.com/politics/2025/01/07/democracy-is-not
- 声明:本文采用 CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 许可协议，转载请注明出处。
相关文章
