民主與資本主義的聯姻並非理所當然

Is the marriage between liberal deMocracy and global capitalism an enduring one? Political developments across the west — particularly the candidacy of an authoritarian populist for the presidency of the most important democracy — heighten the importance of this question.

自由民主制和全球資本主義之間的聯姻會不會長久？西方的政治發展令這個問題愈發重要——尤其是，在最重要的民主國家中，一位威權主義的民粹主義者獲得了總統候選人資格。

One cannot take for granted the success of the political and economic systems that guide the western world and have been a force of attraction for much of the rest for four decades.

對於引導西方世界、並在四十年來一直吸引其他許多地區的政治和經濟制度，人們不能把其成功看作理所當然。

The question then arises: if not these, what?

那麼，這就產生了一個問題：如果這些不復存在，會發生什麼？

A natural connection exists between liberal democracy — the combination of universal suffrage with entrenched civil and personal rights — and capitalism, the right to buy and sell goods, services, capital and one’s own labour freely.

自由民主制和資本主義之間存在天然的聯繫。前者是普選與牢固的民權及個人權利的結合，後者則是自由買賣商品、服務、資本及自身勞動力的權利。

They share the belief that people should make their own choices as individuals and as citizens.

兩者擁有一個共同信念，即人應該以個人或公民身份，做出自己的選擇。

Democracy and capitalism share the assumption that people are entitled to exercise agency.

民主制和資本主義還有一個共同的假設，即人有權發揮主體作用。

Humans must be viewed as agents, not just as objects of other people’s power.

人必須被視爲主體，而不僅僅是他人行使權力的客體。

Yet it is also easy to identify tensions between democracy and capitalism.

然而，同樣很容易發現民主制與資本主義之間的矛盾。

Democracy is egalitarian.

民主制主張平等。

Capitalism is inegalitarian, at least in terms of outcomes.

資本主義是不平等的——至少以結果來說是如此。

If the economy flounders, the majority might choose authoritarianism, as in the 1930s.

如果經濟陷入困境，多數人可能會像上世紀30年代那樣，選擇威權主義。

If economic outcomes become too unequal, the rich might turn democracy into plutocracy.

如果經濟結果變得太不平等，富人可能會把民主制變爲富豪統治。

Historically, the rise of capitalism and the pressure for an ever- broader suffrage went together.

歷史上，資本主義的崛起和要求不斷擴大選舉權的壓力是並行的。

This is why the richest countries are liberal democracies with, more or less, capitalist economies.

這正是爲何最富有的國家都是或多或少實行資本主義經濟的自由民主制國家。

Widely shared increases in real incomes played a vital part in legitimising capitalism and stabilising democracy.

廣泛共享的實際收入增長，對資本主義的合法化和民主制的穩定發揮了關鍵作用。

Today, however, capitalism is finding it far more difficult to generate such improvements in prosperity.

然而，如今資本主義卻發現，像這樣增進繁榮的難度大多了。

On the contrary, the evidence is of growing inequality and slowing productivity growth.

相反，不斷加劇的不平等和不斷放緩的生產率增長卻十分明顯。

This poisonous brew makes democracy intolerant and capitalism illegitimate.

這一有害組合令民主制變得不包容，也令資本主義喪失了合法性。

Today’s capitalism is global.

如今的資本主義是全球性的。

This, too, can be regarded as natural.

這也可以被視爲是自然而然的。

Left to themselves, capitalists will not limit their activities to any given jurisdiction.

如果任資本家自由行動，他們不會將自己的活動限定在任何司法管轄區內。

If opportunities are global so, too, will be their activities.

如果機遇是全球性的，他們的活動也將一樣。

So, as a result, are economic organisations, particularly big companies.

因此各種經濟組織——尤其是大型公司——也是全球性的。

Yet, as Professor Dani Rodrik of Harvard University has noted, globalisation constrains national autonomy.

然而，正如哈佛大學(Harvard University)的丹尼•羅德里克(Dani Rodrik)教授所指出的，全球化限制了國家的自主權。

He writes that democracy, national sovereignty and global economic integration are mutually incompatible: we can combine any two of the three but never have all three simultaneously and in full.

他寫道：民主制、國家主權和全球經濟一體化是互斥的：我們能夠將三者中的任意兩者結合起來，卻永遠無法同時、完全地擁有全部三者。

If countries are free to set national regulations, the freedom to buy and sell across frontiers will be reduced.

如果國家能自由地制定國內監管制度，跨境買賣的自由將會降低。

Alternatively, if barriers are removed and regulations harmonised, the legislative autonomy of states will be limited.

另一方面，如果移除跨境障礙並協調各國監管，各國的立法自主權將會受到限制。

Freedom of capital to cross borders is particularly likely to constrain states’ ability to set their own taxes and regulations.

資本跨境自由流動尤其可能限制各國政府制定自己的稅收和監管制度的能力。

Moreover, a common feature of periods of globalisation is mass migration.

此外，全球化各個階段的一個常見現象是大規模移民。

Movement across borders creates the most extreme conflict between individual liberty and democratic sovereignty.

跨境遷移會催生個人自由與民主主權之間最極端的衝突。

The former says that people should be allowed to move where they like.

前者表示應該允許人們遷移到喜歡的地方去。

The latter says that citizenship is a collective property right, access to which citizens control.

後者則表示公民身份是一種集體財產權，其獲得由公民控制。

Meanwhile, businesses view the ability to hire freely as invaluable.

同時，企業則認爲自由聘用人員的能力是無價的。

It is not merely unsurprising that migration has become the lightning rod of contemporary democratic politics.

移民問題成爲當代民主政治的替罪羊，不僅僅是不令人意外。

Migration is bound to create friction between national democracy and global economic opportunity.

移民問題註定會在國家民主制和全球經濟機遇之間製造摩擦。

Consider the disappointing recent performance of global capitalism, not least the shock of the financial crisis and its devastating effect on trust in the elites in charge of our political and economic arrangements.

考慮一下全球資本主義最近令人失望的表現，特別是金融危機的衝擊，及其對掌管我們政治和經濟安排的精英所受信任的毀滅性影響。

Given all this, confidence in an enduring marriage between liberal democracy and global capitalism seems unwarranted.

考慮到上述所有這一切，對自由民主制和全球資本主義之間長久聯姻的信心似乎沒有保障。

So what might take its place? One possibility would be the rise of a global plutocracy and so in effect the end of national democracies.

那麼，代替這種聯姻的可能是什麼？其中一種可能性是全球富豪統治的崛起，從而實質上終結國家民主制。

As in the Roman empire, the forms of republics might endure but the reality would be gone.

正如羅馬帝國一樣，共和的形式也許會長期存在，然而其實質卻會消失。

An opposite alternative would be the rise of illiberal democracies or outright plebiscitary dictatorships, in which the elected ruler exercises control over both the state and capitalists.

另一個相反的選項則是非自由民主制或直接的公民投票的獨裁的崛起。

This is happening in Russia and Turkey.

在後一種制度下，票選的統治者會同時對政府和資本家實施控制。

Controlled national capitalism would then replace global capitalism.

這正是俄羅斯和土耳其正在發生的情況。

Something rather like that happened in the 1930s.

接着，受控的國家資本主義會取代全球資本主義，類似於上世紀30年代的情況。

It is not hard to identify western politicians who would love to go in exactly this direction.

不難看出哪些西方政客正是想走這條路。

Meanwhile, those of us who wish to preserve both liberal democracy and global capitalism must confront serious questions.

同時，我們中那些希望同時保留自由民主制和全球資本主義的人們，必須面對多個嚴重問題。

One is whether it makes sense to promote further international agreements that tightly constrain national regulatory discretion in the interests of existing corporations.

其中一個問題就是，推動符合現有企業的利益、嚴格限制國家監管自主權的進一步國際協議是否合理。

My view increasingly echoes that of Prof Lawrence Summers of Harvard, who has argued that international agreements [should] be judged not by how much is harmonised or by how many barriers are torn down but whether citizens are empowered.

對此，我的看法越來越與哈佛大學的勞倫斯•薩默斯(Lawrence Summers)教授不謀而合，他曾提出，對於國際協議，不應以協調了多少措施或撤除了多少障礙評判，而應以公民是否被賦權評判。

Trade brings gains but cannot be pursued at all costs.

貿易會帶來好處，但不能不惜一切代價追求貿易。

Above all, if the legitimacy of our democratic political systems is to be maintained, economic policy must be orientated towards promoting the interests of the many not the few; in the first place would be the citizenry, to whom the politicians are accountable.

畢竟，如果要維持我們的民主政治制度的合法性，經濟政策就必須以維護多數人而非極少數人的利益爲導向；全體公民應被放在首位，政客應該對其負責。

If we fail to do this, the basis of our political order seems likely to founder.

如果我們做不到這一點，我們政治秩序的基礎就可能會垮掉。

That would be good for no one.

這對任何人都沒有好處。

The marriage of liberal democracy with capitalism needs some nurturing.

自由民主制與資本主義之間的聯姻需要一點經營。

It must not be taken for granted.

不能把它的存在當作理所當然。