民主与资本主义的联姻并非理所当然

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.

自由民主制和全球资本主义之间的联姻会不会长久？西方的政治发展令这个问题愈发重要——尤其是，在最重要的民主国家中，一位威权主义的民粹主义者获得了总统候选人资格。

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.

对于引导西方世界、并在四十年来一直吸引其他许多地区的政治和经济制度，人们不能把其成功看作理所当然。

The question then arises: if not these, what?

那么，这就产生了一个问题：如果这些不复存在，会发生什么？

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.

自由民主制和资本主义之间存在天然的联系。前者是普选与牢固的民权及个人权利的结合，后者则是自由买卖商品、服务、资本及自身劳动力的权利。

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

两者拥有一个共同信念，即人应该以个人或公民身份，做出自己的选择。

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

民主制和资本主义还有一个共同的假设，即人有权发挥主体作用。

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

人必须被视为主体，而不仅仅是他人行使权力的客体。

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

然而，同样很容易发现民主制与资本主义之间的矛盾。

Democracy is egalitarian.

民主制主张平等。

Capitalism is inegalitarian, at least in terms of outcomes.

资本主义是不平等的——至少以结果来说是如此。

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

如果经济陷入困境，多数人可能会像上世纪30年代那样，选择威权主义。

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

如果经济结果变得太不平等，富人可能会把民主制变为富豪统治。

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

历史上，资本主义的崛起和要求不断扩大选举权的压力是并行的。

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

这正是为何最富有的国家都是或多或少实行资本主义经济的自由民主制国家。

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

广泛共享的实际收入增长，对资本主义的合法化和民主制的稳定发挥了关键作用。

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

然而，如今资本主义却发现，像这样增进繁荣的难度大多了。

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

相反，不断加剧的不平等和不断放缓的生产率增长却十分明显。

This poisonous brew makes democracy intolerant and capitalism illegitimate.

这一有害组合令民主制变得不包容，也令资本主义丧失了合法性。

Today’s capitalism is global.

如今的资本主义是全球性的。

This, too, can be regarded as natural.

这也可以被视为是自然而然的。

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

如果任资本家自由行动，他们不会将自己的活动限定在任何司法管辖区内。

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

如果机遇是全球性的，他们的活动也将一样。

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

因此各种经济组织——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，正如哈佛大学(Harvard University)的丹尼•罗德里克(Dani Rodrik)教授所指出的，全球化限制了国家的自主权。

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.

他写道：民主制、国家主权和全球经济一体化是互斥的：我们能够将三者中的任意两者结合起来，却永远无法同时、完全地拥有全部三者。

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

如果国家能自由地制定国内监管制度，跨境买卖的自由将会降低。

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

另一方面，如果移除跨境障碍并协调各国监管，各国的立法自主权将会受到限制。

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

资本跨境自由流动尤其可能限制各国政府制定自己的税收和监管制度的能力。

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

此外，全球化各个阶段的一个常见现象是大规模移民。

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

跨境迁移会催生个人自由与民主主权之间最极端的冲突。

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

前者表示应该允许人们迁移到喜欢的地方去。

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

后者则表示公民身份是一种集体财产权，其获得由公民控制。

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

同时，企业则认为自由聘用人员的能力是无价的。

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

移民问题成为当代民主政治的替罪羊，不仅仅是不令人意外。

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

移民问题注定会在国家民主制和全球经济机遇之间制造摩擦。

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.

考虑一下全球资本主义最近令人失望的表现，特别是金融危机的冲击，及其对掌管我们政治和经济安排的精英所受信任的毁灭性影响。

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

考虑到上述所有这一切，对自由民主制和全球资本主义之间长久联姻的信心似乎没有保障。

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.

那么，代替这种联姻的可能是什么？其中一种可能性是全球富豪统治的崛起，从而实质上终结国家民主制。

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

正如罗马帝国一样，共和的形式也许会长期存在，然而其实质却会消失。

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.

另一个相反的选项则是非自由民主制或直接的公民投票的独裁的崛起。

This is happening in Russia and Turkey.

在后一种制度下，票选的统治者会同时对政府和资本家实施控制。

Controlled national capitalism would then replace global capitalism.

这正是俄罗斯和土耳其正在发生的情况。

Something rather like that happened in the 1930s.

接着，受控的国家资本主义会取代全球资本主义，类似于上世纪30年代的情况。

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

不难看出哪些西方政客正是想走这条路。

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

同时，我们中那些希望同时保留自由民主制和全球资本主义的人们，必须面对多个严重问题。

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

其中一个问题就是，推动符合现有企业的利益、严格限制国家监管自主权的进一步国际协议是否合理。

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.

对此，我的看法越来越与哈佛大学的劳伦斯•萨默斯(Lawrence Summers)教授不谋而合，他曾提出，对于国际协议，不应以协调了多少措施或撤除了多少障碍评判，而应以公民是否被赋权评判。

Trade brings gains but cannot be pursued at all costs.

贸易会带来好处，但不能不惜一切代价追求贸易。

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.

毕竟，如果要维持我们的民主政治制度的合法性，经济政策就必须以维护多数人而非极少数人的利益为导向；全体公民应被放在首位，政客应该对其负责。

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

如果我们做不到这一点，我们政治秩序的基础就可能会垮掉。

That would be good for no one.

这对任何人都没有好处。

The marriage of liberal democracy with capitalism needs some nurturing.

自由民主制与资本主义之间的联姻需要一点经营。

It must not be taken for granted.

不能把它的存在当作理所当然。