无障碍链接

中国时间: 00:20 2016年12月05日星期一

何清涟: “外部势力”对两波民主化影响之异同


编者按:这是何清涟为美国之音撰写的评论文章。这篇特约评论不代表美国之音的观点。转载者请注明来自美国之音或者VOA。

“两波民主化”指的是始于80年代的第三波民主化浪潮,以及2011年发端的中东北非革命。

写这篇博文缘起于我在一些电台作Calling节目的经验。国内听众经常会发问:中国人权状态这么差,为什么国际社会不帮助我们?听其讲述,似乎他们不了解国际社会是由价值观不同、利益取向不同的各利益主体组成,往往将国际社会视为一个价值共同体,在面临任何国际争端时都能统一行动。我绝对无意嘲讽这些可爱的同胞,但我想通过剖析第三波民主化与2011中东北非革命的国际环境,让读者对国际社会有一个粗略的认识。

近30年以来,世界经历过20多年前的第三波民主化与发端于2011年的中东北非革命。观察国际社会在这两波撼动世界的民主化浪潮当中采取的姿态,对还未民主化的中国极其重要。据我观察,两波运动有个最明显的差别:第三波民主化当中,外部势力的干预行动往往决定性地影响到一个国家的民主化;而2011年发生的中东北非革命,却完全是本国民众权利意识觉醒的结果,并无外部势力的介入与 “操纵”。

对于外部势力在第三波民主化当中扮演的角色,亨廷顿在他的名著《第三波:20世纪后半叶的民主化浪潮》中已专列一节分析,其中提到当一些国家达到特定的社会、经济发展水平时,就进入了最可能朝民主化方向过渡的地带。在这一阶段,外国政府或机构的行动也许会影响、甚至是决定性地影响到一个国家的民主化进程。在1970年代的29个民主国家中,有15个民主政权要么是在外国统治期间建立起来的,要么是在从外国统治下独立后建立起来的。

接下来,亨廷顿列举了以下事实:上世纪80年代末,世界上主要的权势和影响来源如美国、梵蒂冈、欧洲共同体(欧盟的前身)和苏联(指戈尔巴乔夫时期的苏共)都在积极地促进自由化和民主化。罗马教廷使天主教国家的威权政权失去了合法性;布鲁塞尔为南欧和东欧的民主化提供了动力;华盛顿则推进了拉美和亚洲的民主化;莫斯科消除了阻碍东欧民主化的障碍。我想提请读者注意的是,当时这些国家除梵蒂岗利用其宗教影响力、莫斯科主要利用其政治影响力之外,美国、欧共体等正处在经济上升时期。尤其是美国,使用了政治、经济、外交和军事手段来大力促进国外的民主化进程,为输出民主提供了大量实质性的财政支持甚至军事行动方面的支持,比如里根政府在1983年入侵格林纳达,布什政府曾命令军用飞机飞向马尼拉上空,以示支持阿基诺。

但中东、北非今年的“茉莉花革命”,其发端却与第三波民主化浪潮有完全不同的特点:无明显宗教主张驱动,无强大反对派组织,无外部势力在背后“策划唆使”,完全出自于北非中东国家人民权利意识的觉醒。如果要说这轮革命与第三波民主化有什么瓜葛,大概就是第三波民主化浪潮为突尼斯、埃及等国人民获得相对宽松的环境创造了条件——90年代苏东波之后,在外部压力与危机意识的驱使下,这些国家的统治者为了长治久安而采取了相应的宽松措施,如部分放开言论自由、允许私人资本办报、允许民间结社与多党制。说到底,民主化虽然首先是一个价值观念传播的过程,但同时也是一个实践的过程。正是突尼斯本阿里与埃及穆巴拉克这种开了一条门缝的施政措施,种下了今天北非中东茉莉花革命的种子。

中东北非革命潮起,应该说完全出于美欧意料之外。自“冷战”结束之后,西方自由世界失去了“社会主义”这个共同的敌人,纷纷调整外交政策,不再以意识形态与政治制度为主要考量因素。当中东北非发生革命之际,西方国家正好陷入2008年开始的由金融危机导致的经济萧条而财力衰竭。因此当革命发生之时,美欧等国反应迟钝,几天以后才算是表态从道义上支持。利比亚在陷入卡扎菲政府军与反对派的内战之后,联合国安理会在一些阿位伯国家的要求下,才被迫于3月18日通过旨在保护利比亚平民的1973号决议,在利比亚设置禁飞区。一直是世界民主化领头羊的美国,总统奥巴马不得不一再对内向国会保证此次军事行动不增加政府开支,对外一再强调美国参与军事行动的合法性和有限性。这一“有限”,使得利比亚的反对力量在与卡扎菲的武装对抗持续了整整4个月左右,才算是看到了曙光。7月中旬的伊斯坦布尔会议标志利比亚事件进入收尾阶段,利比亚全国过渡委员会领导人马哈茂德•贾布里勒向会议呈交了一份详细计划,表示一旦卡扎菲屈服于国际压力下台之后,将把利比亚转型为全面民主国家。基于此,美国和其它30个国家承认利比亚全国过渡委员会为该国合法管治当局。承诺在办完相关法律手续后,就会将卡氏家族存放在英美等国的320亿美元财产移交给利比亚反对派。

分析两波革命中外部势力的作用与态度,主要是帮助中国国内追求民主自由的人认识一点:推动中国今后的民主化进程,主要依靠本国人民权利意识的觉醒及行动能力的增强。世界现在处于一种此前很少见的历史阶段:西方与中国经济同时陷入衰退期,欧洲经济颓势已成,短期内难以复苏;美国经济虽然比欧洲好得多,但目前也处在U字型底部,加之因阿富汗及伊拉克等几次战争而积欠的巨大的国债,不得不部分调整其国际战略,放弃或者减弱在某些国际事务中的领导者职能。比如在第三波民主化进程中担当了重要角色的美国之音,其中文广播至今前程未卜,就是在这全球包括美国经济衰退的大背景下发生的。

当下,中国其实也进入了朝向民主化过渡的紧要阶段。当一个国家用于对内镇压的维稳经费超过对外的军事开支,全世界都知道这条路最后只会通向动荡混乱。中共领导层如果顺时而动,主动推进民主化进程,将成为世人景仰的戈尔巴乔夫。如果固步自封,顽固地坚持高压维稳,在今后某一天失去了权力,那也完全是自作孽,而非外部势力干预的结果。

Articles by HE Qinglian (何清涟)

Differences and Similarities in the influence “External Forces” has on two waves of democratization

http://hqlenglish.blogspot.com/2011/08/differences-and-similarities-in.html?spref=tw

Written on July 22, 2011
(translated by krizcpec)

By “Two waves of democratization” I mean the Third Wave of Democratization (Third Wave) that started in 1980s and the MENA revolutions that began in 2011.

What made me wrote this post was my experience from calling programs at some radio stations. Audience from China often asked me that given the poor conditions of Chinese human rights, why aren’t the international community offering any help? Judging from what they said, I felt they didn’t seem to realize that the international community is formed by entities which have different interests; to them, the international community has shared values and would act unanimously whenever international disputes arise. Just to make clear to my compatriots that I didn’t mean to be sarcastic, not in the slightest sense. I do feel like to analyze the international environment during the Third Wave and MENA revolutions, so that my readers would have a rough understanding of the international community.

For the past thirty years, the world has witnessed the Third Wave that took place in more than two decades ago and revolutions in MENA that started in 2011. For the yet-to-be-democratized China, it would be most important to observe the international community’s stance on these two earthshaking waves of democratization. From my observation, the most obvious difference between this two movements is that in the Third Wave, external forces’ intervention often had decisive influence upon a country’s democratization process; as for MENA revolutions, it resulted entirely from the peoples’ awakening consciousness of their rights, there was no intervention or “manipulation” from external forces.

Regarding the role external forces had played in the Third Wave, Samuel P. Huntington devoted an entire chapter of his renowned book The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century for analysis. It stated that when some countries had achieved specific social and economic development level, they entered a zone which would make their transition toward democratization most likely. During this phase, actions of foreign governments or organization may impact (decisively) a country’s democratization process. Of the twenty-nine democratic countries in 1970s, fifteen were established either during foreign rule or after they became independent.

Huntington then went on to list out the following facts: in the late 1980s, the world’s major sources of power and influence, such as the United States, the Vatican, the European Community (predecessor of the European Union), and U.S.S.R. (during the Gorbachev era), were all actively promoting liberalization and democratization. The Holy See made Catholic authoritarian regimes lose their legitimacy; Brussels provided the impetus for democratization in Eastern and Southern Europe; Washington promoted democratization in Latin America and Asia; and Moscow cleared the path for democratization in Eastern Europe. I would like to draw my readers’ attention to this: at that time, among these countries, the Vatican used its religious influence; Moscow, political influence; the United States and the European Community were in economic upswings, the United States in particular had vigorously promoted the democratization process abroad through political, economic, diplomatic and military means, providing massive substantial support financially, or even militarily in its effort to export democracy. For example, the Reagan administration invaded Grenada in 1983; the Bush administration ordered military aircraft to fly over Manila to show its support for Corazon C. Aquino.

But this year’s Jasmine revolutions in MENA was triggered by factors completely different from the Third Wave. There was no obvious religious belief that would propel it; there was no powerful opposition organizations, and no external forces to “plan” and “instigate”; it was entirely the result of peoples of MENA countries became aware of their rights. To look for connection, if any, between this wave of revolutions and the Third Wave, then probably one could say that the Third Wave had provided conditions for a relatively relaxed environment in Tunisia, Egypt and other countries. Since the downfall of Communist regimes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, these countries, driven by external pressure and the awareness of the danger of being toppled, have adopted corresponding lenient measures to ensure long-term stability: they partially granted freedom of speech, permitted newspapers run by private capital; they let citizens to associate and allowed multiparty system. After all, democratization is, in the first place, a process of value dissemination; it is, as a matter of fact, also a process of ideas being put into practice. It is the slightly relaxed policies adopted by Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak of Egypt that sowed the seeds of today’s MENA Jasmine revolutions.

The MENA revolutions have taken the United States and Europe by complete surprise. Since the end of the Cold War, the Western liberal world had lost their common enemy, Socialism, and adjusted their own foreign policy, which ideology and political system were no longer the main considerations. When the MENA revolutions began, the Western countries were caught in the recession triggered in 2008 by financial crisis and became financially strained. Therefore, the United States and European countries were unresponsive at the start of the revolutions, they only showed their moral support a few days later. When civil war between the Gaddafi government force and the oppositions broke out in Libya, the UN Security Council was, at the request of some Arab countries, forced to pass on March 18 resolution no. 1973 to protect Libya civilians, and a no-fly zone over that country was established. Longtime global democratization leader the United States has to have its Congress repeatedly reassured that this military operation would not increase government spending, and stressed time and again to the world the legitimacy and the limited nature of U.S. participation in military actions. This limited involvement has led to four whole months of continued armed confrontation with Gaddafi before the Libya opposition forces finally saw brighter prospects. The Istanbul conference in mid-July signified that the Libya incident has entered its final stage. Mahmoud Jebril, a leading figure of the National Transitional Council (TNC), submitted to conference a detailed proposal which stated that once Gaddafi succumb to international pressure and step down, Libya will be transformed into a full democracy. In view of this, the United States, along with thirty other countries, recognized the TNC as the country’s legitimate governing authority and promised to hand over the $32 billion worth of Gaddafi’s family assets, deposited in Britain, the United States, and other countries, after relevant legal procedures are done.

The reason I analyzed the roles and attitudes the external forces had in these two waves of revolutions was mainly to help those pursuing democracy and freedom inside China to understand one thing: the promotion of China’s democratization process in future relies mainly on the people’s awakening consciousness of their rights and the strengthening of their operational capacity. The world has entered a historical phase that is rarely seen before: both the West and China slip into recession, European economic downturn is certain, and its revival in the near future would be difficult; as for the United States, although its economy is much better than Europe, it is currently at the bottom of the U-shaped recession/recovery, coupled with tremendous national debt accumulated as a result of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States has no choice but to adjust its global strategy, relinquish or reduce its leadership functions in certain international affairs. For example, with the backdrop of the United States and the rest of the world slipped into recession, the Voice of America, which had played crucial roles during the Third Wave, sees its Chinese broadcast service hanging in the balance.

Currently, China has in fact reached the crucial phase of moving toward democracy. When a country has set aside more budget for internal repression and maintenance of social stability than for external military expense, the whole world knows this would only lead to turbulence and chaos. If the CCP leadership moves with the tide and actively push for democratization, it will become China’s Mikhail Gorbachev, whom the world look up to with respect; but if it stubbornly upheld the high-handed approach in maintaining stability, then when the day that it loses its power comes, which is not the result of intervention from external force, it will only have itself to blame.
XS
SM
MD
LG