Now, if this is not legitimacy, I’m not sure what is. In contrast, most electoral democracies around the world are suffering from dismal performance. I don’t need to elaborate for this audience how dysfunctional it is from Washington to European capitals. With a few exceptions, the vast number of developing countries that have adopted electoral regimes are still suffering from poverty and civil strife. Governments get elected, and then they fall below 50 percent approval in a few months and stay there and get worse until the next election. Democracy is becoming a perpetual cycle of elect and regret. At this rate, I’m afraid it is democracy, not China’s one-party system, that is in danger of losing legitimacy.

　　當(dāng)然，我不想造成一種誤會(huì)，認(rèn)為中國(guó)成為超級(jí)大國(guó)已經(jīng)指日可待了。中國(guó)當(dāng)前面臨重大挑戰(zhàn)，巨大變遷帶來的經(jīng)濟(jì)、社會(huì)問題數(shù)不勝數(shù)，譬如環(huán)境污染，食品安全、人口問題。在政治領(lǐng)域，最大的挑戰(zhàn)是腐敗。目前，腐敗猖獗，危及中國(guó)的政治制度及其道德合法性。但是，很多分析人士誤判了腐敗的原因，他們聲稱腐敗是一黨制導(dǎo)致的，只有終結(jié)一黨制才能根絕腐敗。更嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)一點(diǎn)兒的分析將證明這種觀點(diǎn)毫無根據(jù)。

　　Now, I don’t want to create the misimpression that China’s hunky-dory on the way to some kind of superpowerdom. The country faces enormous challenges. Social and economic problems that come with wrenching change like this are mine-boggling. Pollution is one. Food safety. Population issues. On the political front, the worst problem is corruption. Corruption is widespread and undermines the system and its moral legitimacy. But most analysts mis-diagnose the disease. They say that corruption is the result of the one-party system, and therefore, in order to cure it, you have to do away with the entire system. But a more careful look would tell us otherwise.

　　據(jù)透明國(guó)際發(fā)布的全球清廉指數(shù)排名，在近170個(gè)國(guó)家里，中國(guó)近年來的排名在第70到80名之間。且有上升趨勢(shì)，印度是世界上人口最多的選舉民主制國(guó)家，排名第95位，且逐年下滑;希臘排名第80位;印度尼西亞與阿根廷排名并列第100位;菲律賓排名第129位。排名在中國(guó)后的約100個(gè)國(guó)家中，超過一半是選舉民主制國(guó)家。如果選舉是根治腐敗的萬(wàn)靈藥，為何在這么多國(guó)家不靈呢?

　　Transparency International ranks China between 70 and 80 in recent years among 170 countries, and it’s been moving up. India, the largest democracy in the world, 94 and dropping. For the hundred or so countries that are ranked below China, more than half of them are electoral democracies. So if election is the panacea for corruption, how come these countries can’t fix it?

　　我是做風(fēng)險(xiǎn)投資的，擅長(zhǎng)于預(yù)測(cè)。因此，不做幾個(gè)預(yù)測(cè)就結(jié)束今天的討論似乎不妥。以下是我的三個(gè)預(yù)測(cè)：

　　未來十年：

　　1. 中國(guó)將超過美國(guó)成為世界第一大經(jīng)濟(jì)體，按人均收入計(jì)算也將在發(fā)展中國(guó)家里名列前茅。2. 腐敗雖然無法根絕，但將得到有效控制。在透明國(guó)際的全球清廉指數(shù)排行榜上，中國(guó)有望繼續(xù)提升10到20名，跨入全球最清廉的前60國(guó)之列。3. 經(jīng)濟(jì)改革會(huì)加速實(shí)施，政治改革也將繼續(xù)推進(jìn)，中共仍穩(wěn)固執(zhí)政。我們正在見證一個(gè)時(shí)代的落幕。共產(chǎn)主義和選舉民主制，都是基于普世價(jià)值的“元敘事”。在20世紀(jì)，我們見證了前者因極端教條而失敗;到21世紀(jì)，后者正重蹈同樣的覆轍。“元敘事”就像癌癥一樣，正在從內(nèi)部吞噬民主。我想澄清一下，我并不是要譴責(zé)民主。

　　Now, I’m a venture capitalist. I make bets. It wouldn’t be fair to end this talk without putting myself on the line and making some predictions. So here they are. In the next 10 years,

　　1、 China will surpass the U.S. and become the largest economy in the world. Income per capital will be near the top of all developing countries.

　　2、 Corruption will be curbed, but not eliminated, and China will move up 10 to 20 notches to above 60 in T.I. ranking.

　　3、 Economic reform will accelerate, political reform will continue, and the one-party system will hold firm.

　　We live in the dusk of an era. Meta-narratives that make universal claims failed us in the 20th century and are failing us in the 21st. Meta-narrative is the cancer that is killing democracy from the inside. Now, I want to clarify something. I’m not here to make an indictment of democracy.

　　相反，我認(rèn)為民主政治對(duì)西方的崛起和現(xiàn)代世界的誕生居功至偉。然而，很多西方精英把某一種民主形式模式化、普世化，這是西方當(dāng)前各種病癥的病灶所在。如果西方的精英不是將大把的時(shí)間花在向外國(guó)推銷民主上，而是更多關(guān)心一下自身的政治改革，恐怕民主還不至于像今天這樣無望。

　　On the contrary, I think democracy contributed to the rise of the West and the creation of the modern world. It is the universal claim that many Western elites are making about their political system, the hubris, that is at the heart of the West’s current ills. If they would spend just a little less time on trying to force their way onto others, and a little bit more on political reform at home, they might give their democracy a better chance.

　　中國(guó)的政治模式不可能取代選舉民主，因?yàn)橹袊?guó)從不將自己的政治制度包裝成普世通用的模式，也不熱衷于對(duì)外輸出。這正是關(guān)鍵的所在。進(jìn)一步說，中國(guó)模式的重要意義，不在于為世界各國(guó)提供了一個(gè)可以替代選舉民主的新模式，而在于從實(shí)踐上證明了良政的模式不是單一而是多元的，各國(guó)都有可能找到適合本國(guó)的政治制度。

　　China’s political model will never supplant electoral democracy, because unlike the latter, it doesn’t pretend to be universal. It cannot be exported. But that is the point precisely. The significance of China’s example is not that it provides and alternative but the demonstration that alternatives exist.

　　讓我們?yōu)椤霸獢⑹隆钡臅r(shí)代畫個(gè)句號(hào)吧。共產(chǎn)主義和民主可能都是人類最美好的追求，但它們普世化的教條時(shí)代已經(jīng)過去。我們的下一代，不需要被灌輸說，世界上只有一種政治模式，所有社會(huì)都只有一種歸宿。這是錯(cuò)誤的，不負(fù)責(zé)任的，也是乏味的。多元化正在取代普世化。一個(gè)更精彩的時(shí)代正緩緩拉開帷幕，我們有沒有勇氣擁抱它呢?

　　Let us draw to a close this era of meta-narratives. Communism and democracy may both be laudable ideals, but the era of their dogmatic universalism is over. Let us stop telling people and our children there’s only one way to govern ourselves and a singular future towards which all societies must evolve. It is wrong. It is irresponsible. And worst of all, it is boring. Let universality make way for plurality. Perhaps a more interesting age is upon us. Are we brave enough to welcome it? Thank you .

　　采訪環(huán)節(jié)。

　　主持人：世默，請(qǐng)等幾分鐘，我要問你幾個(gè)問題，好嗎?我想在座的很多西方人會(huì)同意你的多民主制度功能失敗的分析。但是，同時(shí)他們會(huì)對(duì)一個(gè)不是被選舉產(chǎn)生的政權(quán)，沒有任何監(jiān)督和協(xié)商，去決定國(guó)家利益表示懷疑。中國(guó)政治模式里有什么機(jī)制，可以讓人民說政權(quán)所定義的國(guó)際利益是錯(cuò)的?

　　Eric，stay with me for a couple of minutes, became I want to ask you a couple of questions. I thank many have and in general in Western counties would agree with your statement about analysis of democratic systems becoming dysfunctional, but at the same time, many would kind of unsetting the thought that there find is an unelected authority that, without any form of oversight or consultation, decides what the national interest is. What is the mechanism in the Chinese model that allows people to say actually, the national interest as you defined it is wrong?

　　李世默：政治學(xué)者福山曾經(jīng)把中國(guó)的制度稱為“響應(yīng)民意的威權(quán)”。這不完全精確，但相差不遠(yuǎn)。我知道，中國(guó)最大的民意調(diào)查公司，你知道他們的最大的客戶是誰(shuí)嗎?中國(guó)政府。不只是中央政府，還有省級(jí)市級(jí)政府，甚至最小的地方政府。他們經(jīng)常進(jìn)行民意調(diào)查，你對(duì)收集垃圾等服務(wù)滿意嗎?你們對(duì)國(guó)家的大方向滿意嗎?所以，中國(guó)有一個(gè)很不同的機(jī)制，去響應(yīng)人民的訴求。我要說的關(guān)鍵是，我們應(yīng)該從一種有效的政治制度的思想中解放出來，只有選舉，選舉，選舉，才能產(chǎn)生響應(yīng)民意的政府。其實(shí)，我不覺得當(dāng)今世界的選舉能夠產(chǎn)生響應(yīng)民意的政府。(掌聲)

　　You known, Frank fufuyama, the political scientist called the Chinese system “responsive authoritarianism”. It’s not exactly right, but I thank it comes close. So I know the largest public opinion survey company in china, Okay? Do you know who their biggest client is? The Chinese government. Not just from the central government, the city government the provincial government to the most local neighborhood districts. They conduct surveys all the time. Are you happy with the garbage collection? Are you happy with the general direction of the country? So there’s in China , there is a different kind of mechanism to be responsive to the demands and the thinking of the people. My point is I think we should get unstuck from the thinking that there’s only political system, election, election, election. That could make it responsive. I 'm not sure, actually, elections produce responsive government anymore in the world.

　　主持人：很多人認(rèn)為，民主制度的一個(gè)功能，是讓公民社會(huì)表達(dá)自己，你舉出數(shù)據(jù)論證，中國(guó)政府擁有民眾支持，但你也講到其他因素，比如巨大的挑戰(zhàn)，當(dāng)然，還有其他數(shù)據(jù)顯示另一個(gè)方向：上萬(wàn)的抗議和群體事件，環(huán)保問題等等。你是否建議中國(guó)模式不允許在中國(guó)以外有公民社會(huì)的空間?

　　Many seen to be, one of the features of a democratic system is a space for civil society to express itself. And you have shown figures about the support that the government and the authorities have in China. But then you’ve just mentioned other elements like, you know big challenges and there are, of course, a lot of other data that go to a different direction: Tens of thousands of unrest and protests, and environmental problems etc,,,(yah,yah.)..So you seem to suggest the Chinese model doesn’t have a space outside of the Party for civil society to express itself.

　　李世默：中國(guó)有著相當(dāng)活躍的公民社會(huì)，環(huán)保組織等等。但他們不一樣，你可能認(rèn)不出來，在西方經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)定義里，公民社會(huì)必須存在與政治體制以外，甚至對(duì)立于政治體制。但這種思路與中國(guó)文化格格不入。數(shù)千年來在中國(guó)，所謂的公民社會(huì)都有存在。但他們與政治體制相輔相成，我認(rèn)為，這是一個(gè)很大的文化差異。

　　There’s a vibrant civil society in china, where it environment or what have you but it’s different. You wouldn’t recognize it. Because by western definition, a so-called civil society has to be separate or even in opposition to the political system. But that concept is alien for Chinese culture. For thousands for years, you have civil society, yet they are consistent and coherent and part of a political order, and I thank it’s a big culture different.

　　主持人：世默，感謝你與TED分享這些思想。

　　Eric, thank you for sharing this with TED.

　　世默：謝謝你。

　　Thank you.