Sunday, April 20, 2008

論民主中國的先決條件 (6)

今次先談印度。

從多方面入手,例如總體人口、經濟起飛前的農業基礎、計劃經濟政策的背景等,拿印度的民主制度,來推演中國的民主化發展,個人認為有相當的可靠性(或可能性)。甚至印度在很多方面,例如民族(種族及部族)數量、超高人口密度等,其民主化的限制 (constraints) 理應比中國更複雜和更難處理。何以印度能有一個議會民主政府,但中國至今還沒有?雖然印度民主政府的建立,主因為其獨有的歷史背景,與中國不能比較,但從印度現今的情況,來推算中國的民主化進程所存在的障礙,我認為還是可行的。

我相信大部分香港人對於印度的經驗(無論親身的經驗,還是Discovery Channel / Lonely Planet 上的介紹),主要感覺是「窮」和「烏糟」(接受防疫注射是往印度旅遊時的必要準備。)這兩種感覺就如很多人對於中國大陸的感覺很相像。但我也相信很多香港人對於印度的「窮和烏糟」與中國的「窮和烏糟」有著截然不同的感受,而不管這種感受源於什麼,我希望這些感受不會使我個人對於印度或中國的社會情況產生任何偏見。

個人唯一的遺憾,就是未曾親身踏足印度,實地了解印度的各種環境,然後作出比較像樣的政治及經濟研判。這裡對於印度的所謂了解,大多源於 Wiki,以及書籍上的資料。因此,如有不足或誤解的地方,敬請指正。

(看看量子說Mumbai

******************

正如前文等所述,此刻中國大陸人民的 Geographical Mobility 與 Economic Mobility 都尚算寬鬆和自由。雖然有很多環境上的限制(例如戶籍制度、地域歧視、出身歧視、語言歧視等),但國內的平民百姓要在市場經濟中跑出,還是有相當機會的。

看看另一邊廂的印度,(雖然印度正推行市場經濟以及進行政治改革)觀其舊有的計劃經濟政策,其實是社會階級,即印度種姓制度(Caste System)的延續。種姓制度是根,計劃經濟是果。因為種姓制度限制人民選擇工作的權利。雖然種姓制度美其名為制度,但實際上已經成為習俗,一個牢不可破的習俗。

(我的意思是,無論印度進行何種的經濟改革,其發展道路會與大陸的很不一樣。而兩者的民主化的進程,雖然好像印度比較先進,但實際上其人權情況比大陸更為落後。)

回看印度社會。

印度的種姓制度,源於印度最多人信奉的宗教,即印度教 (Hinduism) 。簡單來說,印度教大致把人分為四等(甚至五等)。最高等的人能當萬人之上,最低等的人只能為高等人的奴隸。職業也因此被分為不同的等級,最低等的人(the untouchables)只能負責社會最厭惡性的工作。而最值得留意的是,種姓是世襲的,一生不能改變,後代也不能改變。(其他有關「種姓」的資料,請自行查看和了解。)

雖然印度「法律」上已經「廢除了」種姓制度,但是,一個根深蒂固的「傳統」,還是左右了一國的將來。

又有資料顯示,最近印度最高法院決議保證更多「低等人」能接受高等教育,但仍有很多人,始終離那個民主「兼平等自由」的國度還很遙遠。(又一次證明給我個人,西方的人權議題,並非普及性,而是選擇性的。)

如何使印度真正擺脫貧窮?我個人的答案,其實已經非常明顯。

另一方面,從中文維基(http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/)的資料顯示:種姓層級最高的婆羅門(Brahman)不及人口的4%,卻佔有七成的司法權及接近半數的國會席次。

這個讓印度高等人種能有更多機會站在「更高等政治階級」的情況,第一重意義就是:數十年的議會民主政府,並不能直接帶來所謂平等、自由。

而第二重意義就是小弟準備論述的中國民主化的先決條件最重要的考慮:Social Mobility。(看得出嗎?)

******************

再插播一下謬論。

我相信,階級鬥爭只會流於不斷的鬥爭,但不能打破階級。

尤其於東方社會,階級/Social Class 於人出生之後便會形成。新生兒誕生為一個新階級,父母又進化成一個階級,兄姊又成為一個階級,以後有又出現學生 ... 淋淋種種的階級一個接一個出現。這些角色被之所以稱為階級,因為角色成為一個集體,然後構成一個被社會所理解、認知和習俗化的層面。之所以東方社會尤有如此現象,當然涉及傳統文化的影響。這些影響或歸咎社會對於不均等權力的認受程度。(即所謂 power distance 權力間距)。東方社會,尤其印度(教)社會,下層的階級會對於上層的高等權力(甚至有壓迫性或剝削性的權力)視為理所當然。

如果這個情況繼續下去,我覺得,在我有生之年,印度,絕不能取得經濟強國的稱號,而民主制度更不是公平和自由的保證。

在一個像印度般,奴隸和人口販賣(其中包括子女的婚姻與未來)仍然非常普遍的社會(根據書本、網絡和道聽途說),我會幻想,倘若要「解放」下層,戰爭是否必然選擇?還是,既然他們覺得受壓迫是理所當然,外人是否應該袖手?試想象美國立國之初的解放黑奴運動,南北戰爭是否一個必然的歷史進程?是否一切流血戰爭都屬於不義?若你生為奴,在如此社會,該應有何作為?

之所以有所謂民主,大概原須視人人生來平等:生為「民」,並(為自己的將來)作「主」。個人化的民主,就是自己掌握自己命運的權利。

我這個謬論所表達的個人看法,就是民主制度,與自由平等沒有必然關係。而且,人在爭取所謂民主政制的過程中,少不免會與所謂「民主政制」所提倡的「和平交接」有所衝突,甚至出現以暴力及非和平的手法爭取所謂「和平的政制」。

而這種爭取之所以出現暴力、暴亂、動蕩,就是因為忽略了當地社會狀況(包括傳統、經濟、生活模式)而強行推出所謂理想政制而產生出來的結果。

這就是我所指「民主」要成功的「先決條件」。

******************

於我理解,民智者,就是社會人士(而非一個中央政府)對於 Social Mobility 的「收放」的適應程度(和調配能力),而非有謂會否「盲從」或能否「自我判斷」。

若你信冥冥中有主宰,正如這片天地,每人都有親自面對「那個主宰」的「平等」,毋須中介。但倘若有人勒令其他人要通過中介才可以面對「那個主宰」,那就代表自己沒有權利親自為自己的將來作主... 那亦只反映 an existence of a mundane social class, not a real social class。在這片天地,倘若人竟然要通過 Social Mobility 才能取得面對「那個主宰」的機會的時候,那這片天地,只是屬於「其他人」的天地。民主的一個先決條件,就是政治的平等,以及能達到更高政治階層的機會的平等(The opportunity to attain a higher political class)。自 Social Mobility 引申下去,就是 Political Mobility(由於個人所理解的 Political Mobility 已經屬於 Political System 的範疇,所以中國大陸的中央政治制度和發展,既然眾說紛紜,小弟應該不會再參一腳了。)。而這些 Mobility 機會,我會稱為 Mobility Potential。

本系列所指的最重要的「先決條件」,就是一個適當的 Social Mobility 的傳統及 Mobility Potential。(VC兄...)

而印度,雖然作為一個被西方承認的民主政體,但其固若金湯的深層階級歧視,完全窒礙了社會應有的 Social Mobility 來體現真正「人民作主」的理念。

******************

下期再談國內 Social Mobility ,以及國內的「官本位」政治文化。

******************

印度暴亂,希望「調低」種姓級別: http://www.mpinews.com/htm/INews/20080530/ta51836c.htm (節錄:... 調低自己的種姓級別,以更容易獲得政府工作和大學教育機會 ... (因為) ... 處於最低層的部落和階層享受的優待較他們多...)

9 comments:

Derek said...

朋友你越寫越難明,我越睇越唔明喇

C.M. said...

Derek兄:

鎖你鎖你。你提醒了我之後,又改了... 好像還是老樣子,前言不對後語... 請諒。

(咪自我安慰話費事比人當功課抄囉... 係,我真係想寫份類似題目既披爬。)

VC said...

反證法簡單應用:
印度證明了你的先決條件並不必要!

P.S. don't agree "在我有生之年,印度,絕不能取得經濟強國的稱號"

agree "民主制度更不是公平和自由的保證。"

余若虛 said...

cm,即使撇除宗教不可估計的強大力量影響,你的例子證明的是:「民主制度不是公平和自由的保證」,(這點我是同意的),但不能說明social mobility就是民主的先決條件。(當然,期待你下集的論述!)

至於一個國家經濟是否富強,不完全跟國家的政治制度掛鈎。很難說caste system下的印度經濟力量就不能達到強國水平。

C.M. said...

謝VC、若虛兄,其實你倆說的都對,不過容小弟日內回覆你們。

微豆 Haricot said...

I spent the last hour reviewing your articles, from 車仔話 dated March 25th, to 論民主中國的先決條件 (6) dated April 20th. Here are my comments:

1. You have chosen "mobility" as your "entry point" to assess the feasibility and readiness of implementing "democracy" in China. Moreover, you intend to demonstrate that "mobility" is the pre-condition for such implementation. Unfortunately, you had deliberately left out the definition of "democracy" that is after all the subject of the discussion. (Reference: Your April 11th comments at the end of 論民主中國的先決條件 (4) "... 我覺得“民主”這兩字,對於眾人的分歧實在不少,所以寧願留白,讓人各取所需。") In response to VC's question "... 你打算定義甚麼是民主嗎?", you provided the following: "... 小弟一直在這裡寫的“民主”,採用了一個比較狹隘的定義,大致是:是否“人民”選出(例如通過投票直選)。" But then in subsequent articles, you seemed to have broadened the definition of democracy beyond 「民主制度」(which is a process/model/system) to 「人民作主」(which is a principle). As reader, I find it difficult to follow a discussion with a moving target.
2. I actually don't understand why you have chosen "mobility" as the entry point to your discussion. As I read on, I am not sure whether you have convinced me that mobility is a pre-condition. It reminds me of my mother telling me to play basketball so I would grow tall; as opposed to the fact that tall people are chosen to play professional basketball. For me, there seems to be a difference of opinions on cause and effect. I would think that the opening up of China's economy is the main cause or driver of people's social, economic and geographical mobility. As VC pointed out: "... 印度證明了你的先決條件並不必要! .."
3. I would agree the use of India as a model is a good one because as developing countries China and India have many things in common. I also applaud you effort to point out that there are huge social-cultural differences that renders a direct application of the India democracy to China impractical. But that's as far as I would go. I do not believe that one can therefore jump to the conclusion and declare "... 在我有生之年,印度,絕不能取得經濟強國的稱號 ...". I would also submit that Nepal is only of passing interest and that there is little applicable resemblance to present-day China.
4. The articles seem to imply that there is only one kind of western democracy. Nothing can be further from the truth !!! There are many forms and models of democracy around the world. (Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy). Associated with each democracy model are specific features and characteristics. Only by examining the models and considering the ones that might be suitable can you then speculate on the pre-conditions; the necessary but not sufficient conditions; and the winning conditions; etc.
5. There are no rules that say a country cannot customize its own forms of governance out of the existing models. There is also nothing that stipulates a timeframe or ideal pace for democratization, if at all some might add. While some countries believe democracy is an end that justifies all means to achieve it, other consider it only as a mean to an end. I would suggest that each country should do its own need assessment; SWOT (Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis; cost-benefit analysis; as well as risk assessment and risk management; etc before jumping head first into making hasty changes (unless time is of the essence).
6. Finally, there are indeed many factors that are unique to China and they should be taken into consideration as factors for or against making any changes. They should all be listed as opposed to dealing with them on a piece-meal basis.

Thank you for your essay and I look forward to reading more !!!

C.M. said...

Haricot, I love to see you commenting!

Yes, there are significant loopholes, flaws and obsurity in linking "mobility" with "pre-conditions" and in many other areas requiring clearer definitions. VC, 若虛 and you are very accurate on this.

Notwithstanding these "limitations" in my "arguments", I will try to 自圓其說 in my later chapters.

And you might have already realized, I am not a truth-seeker. I see myself "someone" else" and write this series on purpose. :P

(Let me first answer VC and 若虛)

C.M. said...

VC兄:

(關於何謂反證法,小弟查了很多遍都不太明白,請提示。小弟的邏輯,並沒有受過嚴格指導,實引以為憾)

你所說的反證法是否表示:既然我都說印度在如此環境都可以實行民主政體,那為何似乎環境更好的中國反而不能?

如果大概是這樣,那大抵是對的。

雖然當中或有歪曲或謬誤,但我還是會:維持原先判斷。

其實我所一直論述的,都是「中國民主化」,而不是單單「民主化」。

先不管小弟有沒有誤會你的意思,那我只能補充說,印度走的路和中國走的路,並不一樣。

Social Mobility 作為「評述」中國民主化的先決條件的最重要考慮,並非代表 "Social Mobility" 本身就是那最重要的先決條件。

忙中有感》一文亦指:小弟所寫的「先決條件」,並非 Mobility (無論 Geographic, Economic 還是 Social Mobility)。Mobility 只是一個 joint...

《論民主中國的先決條件 (5)》中雖亦有所指,不過,我心中的... 還是請容許我下回再自圓其說。

———————

VC, 若虛兄:

關於「在我有生之年,印度,絕不能取得經濟強國的稱號」,雖然字眼略嫌為主觀,我也考慮計算多次,我還是使用了一個比較肯定的語氣,雖然我亦蓄意加上「如果這個情況繼續下去」。

我的理解(顯然若虛也明白)是,若印度的主流宗教不進行改革,那印度的 caste system 仍然會主宰社會流動。一個缺乏社會流動能力(Social Mobility Potential)的社會,並不能完全釋放一個社會的潛在經濟使用能力和經濟競爭力,無論是生產方面,還是消費方面,都受到很大的遏制。

從經濟學中的 Human Capital 的角度看,更能說明這一點。

這裡指:"the ability to have mobility with regards to where people want to move and work is a part of their human capital. Being able to move from one area to the next is an ability and a benefit of having human capital. To restrict people from doing so would be to inherently lower their human capital."

為何印度人口眾多,成本比中國更低,但自後來還不能追上中國,甚至取代中國這個世界工廠?反而是由小小的越南或柬埔寨等可以?除了政制原因(也受社會階級影響),更因為印度的上等人不能/也不會做工廠工人,而下等人則不准做。也就是說,根本沒有足夠的人去做,沒有中國一樣的民工支持製造業,去填補各種職位的空缺。有心做又如何?根本想做也不准!

或有問,印度的 IT 人才又何來?其實道理一樣。下等人不能當 IT,於我的理解,IT 這個屬於新的行業,對於 caste system 大抵是屬於一個比較不明確的職業,所以能夠參與其中者可以為中高層人等,我相信若印度下等人也能做 IT,其經濟貢獻會更強勁。

除了接受非主流宗教甚至離開祖國的人士外,被扼殺了 Social Mobility 的人,根本難有為自己作主的一天。從經濟角度看,絕難有釋放強大經濟潛能的一天。

沒有足夠天然資源,加上眾多的人口,單靠社會少數的中高層人士去建立經濟強國,根本是妙想天開。

「如果這個情況繼續下去,我覺得,在我有生之年,印度,絕不能取得經濟強國的稱號」。

———————

「民主制度更不是公平和自由的保證」

多謝支持小弟論點。有否任何相對的例子?

C.M. said...

微豆兄:

嘩,咁多!希望唔會悶親你。

小弟正wing wing 地,可能詞不達意(小黃蓉等一定會話:你周不時都係嫁喇!),請諒。不過,小弟都想提早自圓其說一下。

1.

>>You have chosen "mobility" as your "entry point" to assess the feasibility and readiness of implementing "democracy" in China

99% correct. Actually I was not "assessing".

I delibrately left empty the definition of "Democracy" because I did't intend to treat this series academic nor theoretical. Time (and willpower) is what I don't have for now.

As I said, I am not a truth-seeker. I did't mean to "assess", (in fact) I meant to "acknowledge". To me the vision of (and urge for) "a Democratic China" or "Democratization of China" in general public had been vague (and diverse) enough to be discussed on an academic basis.

But it doesn't mean I am not serious. I am. And thanks for your reminder, I would make some of my views on process propensities (political culture) to supplement (but not clarify) my "view" on the term "democracy". :P

2. Thanks. I chose "mobility" because I see "mobility" is what one can see and assess. Mobility is a "visible" reflection of the democratization (here it means: public participation in political system) progress of a country.

Fong Yun may be right for saying in here: 民主唯一的先決條件,就是大家要承認國家政權是由人民授權、而非誰掌握槍桿子就有權。.

But it is not easy to assess the extent of "承認" or "denial" (and even "人權"). In contrast, mobility to me, can be measurable and is likely more objective. ("I cannot assess" doesn't mean I cannot assess mobility.)

3. Really sorry.

I didn't jump to conclusion, but I just didn't mention clearly my line of argument. :P Perhaps I did't want to discuss to much on economics.

4. You are right! There are lots of democratic systems! To certain extent, the Chinese one is also democratic but it just doesn't come up to the "WESTERN" standard!

However, it is the Western kind of democracy being the only feasible (and true) political system many people in HK are urging for.

"That's why" I really want to leave the term democracy a vague term to think of. (...Can you see my purpose of writing this series now? Anyway, I would try to make my purpose very clear in my final chapters. Well, sometimes I'd never.)

5. You are so right. I guess you would really know why I write this series. (though I just wrote badly.)

6.

>>They should all be listed as opposed to dealing with them on a piece-meal basis

Umm... it's really something that CCP should think about. But to certain extent, I'm not quite worried about "dealing them piece-meal". I believe in "negative feedback" mechanism and "the ability to learn" of organizations.

I look forward to your critique and commenting!

Thanks!
(題外話:你採用左一種很有特色/很特別的類似哲學角度去講“管理”,小弟獲益不少。)