CN — LARRY ROMANOFF: 民主,最危险的宗教 — 第15章—中国的民主实验

    0
    128

     

    Democracy, The Most Dangerous Religion
    民主,最危险的宗教

    Part 15 – China’s Democracy Experiments
    第15章—中国的民主实验

    By Larry Romanoff
    拉里•罗曼诺夫

    翻译: 珍珠

    CHINESE

    CONTENT
    目录

    15.1. Introduction
    15.1简介

    15.2. Kindergarten Democracy
    15.2幼儿园民主

    15.1. Introduction
    15.1简介

    I have written earlier that the multi-party electoral system (“democracy”) is the only form of government designed to be controlled by outsiders, naturally leaving it open to corruption and fraud. The Chinese, listening to the Americans, discovered all the proof of this in their own back yard. China has experimented with small-scale introductions of Western-style democratic elections for local officials in rural areas.

    我之前曾写道,多党选举制度(民主)是唯一一种由外人控制的政府形式,自然会滋生腐败和欺诈。中国人听美国人的话,在自己的后院发现了所有证据。中国已经在农村地区对地方官员进行了小规模引入西式民主选举的试验。

    We are often told that “first impressions” are the most important, that on initially meeting a person or entering a new situation, we see it most clearly at that first introduction. With the passage of time, our perceptions become clouded and dimmed by extraneous factors  and our focus scattered by irrelevancies. On the introduction of “democracy” to the Chinese, they saw it very clearly as it really was – a system for obtaining political power that was just begging to be manipulated. In fact, it was seen as the very purpose of such a system and to have been designed precisely for such a purpose. And it was.

    我们经常被告知“第一印象”是最重要的,在初次见面或进入一个新的环境时,我们会在第一次介绍时看得最清楚。随着时间的推移,我们的看法会因无关因素而变得模糊不清,我们的注意力也会因无关紧要的事情而分散。在向中国人介绍“民主”时,他们非常清楚地看到了它的真实面目——一个乞求被操纵的获取政治权力的制度。事实上,它被视为这种制度的真正目的,并且是专门为此目的而设计的。事实也的确如此。

    In early 2014, in Changsha, China’s nursery of democracy and many other imaginative crimes, there was a massive vote-buying scandal where almost 60 individuals were charged for electoral fraud, dereliction of duty, disrupting elections, buying votes, bribery and related corruption, involving more than 500 lawmakers and various local party officials who were disqualified and relieved of their posts, their crimes involving many thousands of citizens and more than 100 million yuan in bribes. And this was only one case of many.

    2014年初,在中国民主之都长沙和其他许多想象中的犯罪之都,发生了大规模的贿选丑闻,60人被指控选举舞弊、渎职、扰乱选举、贿选、行贿和相关腐败,涉及500多名议员和地方各级党政官员,他们被取消资格并被解除职务,他们的罪行涉及数千名公民和1亿多元的贿赂。而这只是众多案件中的一例。

    In North China’s Hebei province, one town had two failed elections within a month, corrupted by vote-buying with twice as many votes as eligible voters, stolen ballot boxes and much other electoral fraud. Many towns and villages introduced multi-party elections in the late 1980s, with many experiencing similar problems. In September of 2016, there was a massive election-Rigging Scandal in Liaoning, with more than 500 people paying bribes to get friends elected. China’s National People’s Congress expelled 45 lawmakers, nearly half the number elected from Liaoning, because of bribery and election fraud. In addition, more than 500 lawmakers were dismissed or resigned from the 619-member Liaoning People’s Congress, and several people were arrested.

    在中国北方的河北省,一个城镇在一个月内举行了两次失败的选举,因贿选、贿选票数达到合格选民的两倍、盗用投票箱和其他选举舞弊行为而败选。许多城镇和村庄在20世纪80年代末引入了多党选举,许多地方也遇到了类似的问题。2016年9月,辽宁省发生了大规模的选举舞弊丑闻,500多人行贿让朋友当选。由于贿赂和选举舞弊,中国全国人民代表大会开除了45名议员,几乎是辽宁当选议员的一半。此外,619名辽宁人民代表大会中有500多名议员被解雇或辞职,有几人被捕。

    I was surprised that anyone was surprised. That’s democracy. That’s how it works. It was designed to be wide open to corruption. In the West, we have more experience so we do it more quietly and in different ways, but the result is the same. Wherever money can buy legislative power, all open systems will become corrupted.

    我很惊讶居然有人会感到惊讶。这就是民主。这就是它的运作方式。它被设计成对腐败敞开大门。在西方,我们更有经验,所以我们更安静地以不同的方式去做,但结果是一样的。无论金钱能买到立法权,所有开放的系统都会被腐败。

    The Chinese saw “democracy” as it really was – a way to obtain control of a government by collecting votes. The easiest way to collect votes is to buy them, and there isn’t even any morality here. Before moralising about the Chinese, consider that if it’s okay for AIPAC and corporations to buy politicians, why isn’t it okay for politicians to buy voters? The next easiest way (if you’re willing to be a bit dishonest) is to print excess ballots and stuff the ballot boxes. And let’s not forget that stuffing ballot boxes was a tradition in the US and Canada 200 years ago.

    中国人看到了“民主”的真正面目——一种通过收集选票来控制政府的方式。最简单的收集选票的方法就是花钱买,这里甚至没有任何道德可言。在用道德标准评判中国人之前,想想如果AIPAC和公司可以花钱买政客,为什么政客不能花钱买选民?下一个最简单的方法(如果你愿意有点不诚实)是印制多余的选票并塞满投票箱。我们不要忘记,200年前,塞满投票箱是美国和加拿大的传统。

    But again, with this “new” political system, we are being offered full control of the government of a city, by the simple expedient of having people vote for us. There is no other requirement, and anyone can do it. It’s obvious that someone with money and ambition will rise to this challenge and find a way, honest or otherwise, to get those votes.

    但是,对于这种“新”政治制度,我们通过简单的权宜之计——让人们为我们投票——就可以完全控制一个城市的政府。没有其他要求,任何人都可以这样做。很明显,有钱有野心的人会迎接这一挑战,并找到一种方法,无论是诚实的还是其他方式,来获得这些选票。

    These are serious issues in China because increasingly the king-makers in the background will be foreigners. Jews, US Consulate staff, members of the US State Department, Embassy officials who are CIA but disguised as diplomats, the NED, USAID, AmCham and dozens of American NGOs, are all spending money and working in the background to influence government in China. That’s the truth, and if it’s apparent to me it should be obvious to many others. Their success in Hong Kong is stunning; the Americans have obtained enormous influence on the political landscape in Hong Kong and are so clever and experienced that the hundreds of thousands of little Hong Kong puppets cannot even see the strings. And they have every intention of doing the same in Mainland China.

    这些在中国都是严重的问题,因为越来越多的幕后王者将是外国人。犹太人、美国领事馆工作人员、美国国务院成员、伪装成外交官的中情局大使馆官员、NED、美国国际开发署、美国商会和数十个美国非政府组织都在花钱,并在幕后影响中国政府。这是事实,如果这对我来说是显而易见的,那么对许多其他人来说也应该是显而易见的。他们在香港的成功是惊人的;美国人在香港的政治格局中获得了巨大的影响力,他们如此聪明和经验丰富,以至于成千上万的香港小木偶甚至看不见线绳。他们完全打算在中国大陆也这样做。

    15.2. Kindergarten Democracy

    15.2. 幼儿园民主

    But these examples were nothing compared to what happened at the Chunhui Primary School in Zhengzhou, where 1,700 small children learned lessons about “democracy” that they will unfortunately never forget. These students used to have a “backward, old-fashioned, traditional, Chinese-style” system of choosing student leaders where the selection was based on silly things like scholastic merit  and the recommendations of teachers as to character. But, thanks to American pressure, they “altered their tradition” and instead turned to modern, Western-style “democracy”.

    但这些例子与郑州春晖小学发生的事情相比,简直是小巫见大巫。在那里,1700名小学生学习了“民主”课程,不幸的是,他们永远不会忘记。这些学生过去有一个“落后、老式、传统、中国式”的学生领袖选拔制度,选拔是基于学术成绩和教师对性格的推荐等愚蠢的事情。但是,由于美国的压力,他们改变了传统,转而采用现代的西式“民主”。

    And how did that work? Well, one student (with a very poor academic record) was chosen as a leader because he was “good at basketball” and was “friendly”. And how did they get themselves elected? Well, they learned to conduct democratic election campaigns, just like all Westerners. According to media reports, “Some played the saxophone, some danced, and some showed off their calligraphy or painting skills, played traditional Chinese musical instruments as a way of impressing voters.” One mother was so eager to make her little kid a king that she printed more than 1,000 pretty little blue election cards with his name, asking everyone to vote for him.

    那么,这是怎么做到的呢?一个成绩很差的学生被选为领袖,因为他“擅长打篮球”并且“很友好”。他们是如何当选的?他们学会了像所有西方人一样进行民主选举。据媒体报道,“一些人演奏萨克斯,一些人跳舞,一些人展示他们的书法或绘画技巧,演奏中国传统乐器,以此打动选民。”一位母亲非常渴望让她的孩子成为国王,她印了1000多张漂亮的小蓝卡,上面有他的名字,要求大家投他一票。

    The Headmaster of the school, Hu Jianling, said the program aimed to encourage students to “bravely express their ideas” and to “participate in the school’s management”. In the opinion of the school, these student leaders proved Hu’s plan “effective and perhaps even beneficial”.

    该校校长胡建林表示,该计划旨在鼓励学生“勇敢地表达自己的想法”并“参与学校的管理”。学校认为,这些学生领袖证明了胡的计划“有效,甚至可能有益”。

    Let’s examine what really happened here. I have no wish to embarrass Mr. Hu, who I am sure is a fine gentleman with good intentions, but what kind of devil possessed this man that he thought it was a good idea to get 1,700 10-year-old kids to “bravely participate in the school’s management”? What the hell does he think a school is? In this one experiment in this one school, we can see all the pathetic flaws of Western democracy, flaws apparently invisible to the teachers, the parents and especially to the students who have learned a corrupt lesson in living that they will probably never forget. If you want to corrupt the population, it is always best to begin with the children, because that will make the corruption permanent.

    让我们来审视一下这里到底发生了什么。我不想让胡先生难堪,我相信他是个好心的绅士,但这个男人到底中了什么邪,居然认为让1700名10岁的孩子“勇敢地参与学校的管理”是个好主意?他到底认为学校是什么?在这所学校的这个实验中,我们可以看到西方民主的所有可悲的缺陷,这些缺陷显然是教师、家长,尤其是那些在生活中学到了腐败教训的学生们永远不会忘记的。如果你想腐蚀人口,最好从孩子开始,因为这会使腐败永久化。

    First, what was the purpose of these elections? It should be to select the most competent person for a job that carries responsibilities to the students, but nowhere in any of this little kindergarten travesty was there even a mention of competency or responsibility. None. These little politicians just wanted to be elected because they wanted to be elected, not because they had any ability or wanted to accomplish anything useful for their schoolmates. There were no students who campaigned to eliminate excessive homework or to have cleaner washrooms or more after-school tutoring. They just wanted to be leaders and to have the accompanying power and prestige, with not a thought to any obligation involved.

    首先,这些选举的目的是什么?应该是选择最能胜任这份工作的人,而这份工作对学生负有责任,但在这所幼儿园的任何拙劣作品中,都没有提到过能力或责任。没有一个这些小政客只是想当选,因为他们想当选,而不是因为他们有能力或想为同学们做些有益的事情。没有学生竞选消除过多的家庭作业,也没有学生竞选更干净的洗手间或更多的课后辅导。他们只是想成为领导者,并拥有随之而来的权力和声望,而没有考虑到任何义务。

    Even worse, how did these little politicians campaign? How did they conduct themselves to convince their electorate to vote for them? Well, they “leveraged their personal popularity”” from good looks or sports ability, or their father’s money for buying pretty dresses and nice bicycles. They “leveraged their entertainment ability” by playing the saxophone or other instruments. They “leveraged their painting and calligraphy skills”, and they no doubt found many inventive 10-year-old ways to run around the school begging for votes. How wonderful. The mother who paid to print the cute little blue cards for her kid to pass out will next time have a 5-yuan note attached to them. Those little kids learned that the only real qualification for becoming a leader and taking power is a talent for psychological manipulation, that credentials are ignored in obtaining votes.

    更糟糕的是,这些小政客是如何竞选的?他们是如何说服选民投票给他们的?好吧,他们“利用了他们的个人声望”,通过长相或运动能力,或者他们父亲的金钱来购买漂亮的衣服和自行车。他们“利用了他们的娱乐能力”,演奏萨克斯管或其他乐器。他们“利用了他们的绘画和书法技能”,他们无疑找到了许多创造性的10岁方法,在学校周围乞讨选票。太棒了。那位花钱为孩子印制可爱蓝色卡片分发的母亲下次会附上5元钱。那些小孩子知道,成为领导者和掌权的唯一真正资格是心理操纵的天赋,在获得选票时忽略了证书。

    Are these the primary ingredients of a good leader? Is this how China chooses its General Secretary and Politburo members? Do they sit in Tiananmen Square and play a saxophone or a guitar, or paint caricature portraits of tourists? This is how the Americans select their leaders, but why teach this to Chinese children as an ideal?

    这些是优秀领导者的主要特征吗?中国是这样选择总书记和政治局委员的吗?他们坐在天安门广场上演奏萨克斯或吉他,或给游客画漫画肖像吗?美国人就是这样选择领导人的,但为什么把这作为理想教给中国孩子?

    But this was only the first attempt and our little politicians had no experience on which to draw. They will do much better the next time. They will quickly learn that you can buy votes, and will begin raising small amounts of money to give out more than cute blue cards to anyone who promises to vote for them. They will learn that you can attract votes by making promises – not by keeping them, but by making them. So, they will promise to reduce homework, with no idea of how to do that and with the knowledge that they have no power to accomplish such a result in any case. But they will promise, at least to try.

    但这只是第一次尝试,我们的小政客们没有经验可以借鉴。下次他们会做得更好。他们很快就会知道你可以买票,并开始筹集少量资金,向任何承诺投票给他们的人发放更多可爱的蓝色卡片。他们会知道你可以通过做出承诺来吸引选票,而不是通过遵守承诺,而是通过做出承诺。所以,他们会承诺减少家庭作业,虽然他们不知道该怎么做,并且知道无论如何他们都没有能力实现这样的结果。但他们至少会承诺尝试。

    They will learn they have the power to grant gifts of patronage, and will promise to place popular voters on committees, with the expectation these individuals will help to sway other voters. They will promise to work for easier marking standards, better school lunches, and many other things that the smart candidates will know are fundamental issues for all students. They will learn to read the wishes of the student body and to turn those desires into votes and personal power. They will quickly learn to become real politicians. In short, they will learn to lie and manipulate.

    他们将知道他们有能力给予赞助的礼物,并承诺将受欢迎的选民放在委员会中,期望这些人将有助于影响其他选民。他们将承诺为更简单的评分标准、更好的学校午餐以及许多其他聪明候选人知道的所有学生的基本问题而努力。他们将学会阅读学生团体的愿望,并将这些愿望转化为选票和个人权力。他们将很快学会成为真正的政治家。简而言之,他们将学会撒谎和操纵。

    They already know that a school year is a long time and that kids have short memories; they intuitively know they won’t be held accountable for failing to deliver, and they also know there is no accountability anyway, that after they are elected, nobody can do anything to them. If there were personal responsibility, there would be no candidates.

    他们已经知道一个学年很长,孩子们的记忆力很短;他们本能地知道他们不会因为失败而承担责任,他们也知道无论如何都没有责任,在他们当选后,没有人可以对他们做任何事情。如果有个人责任,就没有候选人。

    And it gets worse. In all segments of society, including elementary schools, there are always ‘king-makers’ lurking in the background, those who don’t want to be in the light but who prefer to sit in the shadows and pull the strings. These are the clever ones who amass the real power and who intuitively understand how to control events to their ultimate satisfaction regardless of the wishes of the greater group. These are the dangerous ones; they are too clever by half, and are naturally manipulative. Often, they have a mother who is of like mind and character, providing all the guidance necessary. The first thing they learn is that the power lies in the nominations, not in the voting.

    而且情况越来越糟。在社会各个阶层,包括小学,总有一些“造王者”潜伏在幕后,他们不想抛头露面,而是喜欢躲在阴影里操纵一切。这些聪明人积聚了真正的权力,他们本能地知道如何控制事件,无论大集团的意愿如何,都能达到他们最终的满意。这些都是危险的人;他们太聪明了,天生善于操纵。通常,他们有一位志同道合、性格相似的母亲,为他们提供一切必要的指导。他们首先学到的是权力在于提名,而不是投票。

    And now we naturally enter the field of multi-party politics where we have two or three king-makers, each with a following, each selecting a likely candidate who will be obedient and controllable, and will say, “I can make you the leader. Would you like that?” And off we go, each king-maker (and his mother) designing a platform of campaign promises guaranteed to attract naive, innocent and inexperienced little voters.

    现在我们自然进入了多党政治领域,在这个领域,我们有两三个国王制造者,每个国王制造者都有自己的追随者,每个国王制造者都会选择一个顺从的、可控的候选人,并说:我可以让你成为领导者。你愿意吗?然后我们出发了,每个国王制造者(和他的母亲)都会设计一个竞选承诺平台,保证吸引天真、无辜和缺乏经验的小选民。

    This is where it will lead, and there is nothing the school or the teachers can do to prevent it. Why? Because the original premise, however nicely-worded, is false, flawed, and almost criminal. The purpose of this selection process should be to choose the best leaders for the school, mature, responsible little people of good character who can set an example for the other kids, who care about the welfare of their school-mates and who will genuinely use their power to improve the school’s environment. But we have discarded that objective and instead created a purposeless popularity contest that is wide open to every kind of social pressure and corruption. We are not selecting our leaders on their ability or their character or their sense of responsibility, but instead on their personal marketing ability – on their skills to influence and manipulate others to vote for them, honestly or otherwise.

    这就是它所导致的结果,学校或老师也无法阻止它。为什么呢?因为最初的前提,无论措辞多么漂亮,都是错误的、有缺陷的,甚至是犯罪的。这个选拔过程的目的应该是为学校选择最好的领导者,成熟、负责任、品格良好、能为其他孩子树立榜样的年轻人,他们关心同学的福利,并会真正利用自己的权力来改善学校环境。但我们放弃了这一目标,反而创造了一个毫无目的的流行比赛,它对各种社会压力和腐败敞开大门。我们不是根据他们的能力、性格或责任感来选拔领导者的,而是根据他们的个人营销能力——他们影响和操纵他人投票给他们的技能,无论是否诚实。

    In all of this, where is the discussion of credentials, of qualifications for a position of responsibility? Totally absent. In fact, the prior system of teacher character recommendations and scholastic excellence – in other words, credentials – which was a perfect system, was specifically abandoned so these idiotic yuppies could emulate the Americans and  accommodate their foolish version of “democracy”.

    在这所有的一切中,哪里有过对资历、对责任岗位资格的讨论?完全没有。事实上,之前的教师品格推荐和学业优秀制度——换句话说,资历——是一个完美的制度,但被特别废弃了,这样这些愚蠢的雅皮士就可以效仿美国并适应他们愚蠢的“民主”版本。

    There is no evidence that any of these little candidates had any leadership skills, good academic records, a sound character, or indeed any understanding whatever of the needs and wishes of either the students or the teachers. None would be old enough to have any appreciation of the meaning of participating in the management of the school. None will be selected on any of the necessary attributes of a leader. Few if any will have any real qualifications for a leadership position, and none will understand the responsibility they are accepting. They are little kids.

    没有证据表明这些小候选人具备任何领导技能、良好的学习成绩、健全的性格,或者确实了解学生或教师的需求和愿望。没有人会因为年龄大而理解参与学校管理的意义。没有人会因为具备领导者的必要品质而被选中。很少有人具备担任领导职务的真正资格,也没有人会理解他们所承担的责任。他们都是小孩子。

    And what of the students who vote? What will they consider in casting their votes for a student leader? The ability to play a saxophone? Mama’s pretty blue cards? Few if any will have an appreciation of their responsibility, few will know how to choose wisely, and none will have the ability to properly evaluate a (more or less) unknown person for a job whose duties they do not understand. My congratulations. Welcome to American-style politics, the one thing China was fortunate to not have.

    那些投票的学生呢?他们在投票选举学生领袖时,会考虑哪些因素?是演奏萨克斯的能力?还是妈妈漂亮的蓝卡?很少有人会意识到自己的责任,很少有人知道如何明智地选择,也没有人能够正确地评估一个(或多或少)未知的人,来担任他们不理解的工作。恭喜你。欢迎来到美式政治,这是中国幸运地没有的一件事。

    But this is precisely what China now has in its rural areas with the introduction of Western-style democratic elections for local officials. These are much more serious because the participants are adults, the decisions affect real lives, and because too often the king-makers in the background are almost all American and Jewish.

    但是,中国现在农村地区引进的西式民主选举,恰恰是这种情况。这些选举更加严肃,因为参与者都是成年人,决策影响现实生活,而且背景中的王牌人物几乎都是美国人和犹太人。

    *

    Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 32 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chapt. 2 — Dealing with Demons).

    罗曼诺夫先生的作品已被翻译成32种语言,他的文章发表在30多个国家的150多个外语新闻和政治网站以及100多个英语平台上。拉里·罗曼诺夫是一名退休的管理顾问和商人。他曾在国际咨询公司担任高级管理职位,并拥有国际进出口业务。他曾是上海复旦大学的客座教授,为高级EMBA课程提供国际事务案例研究。罗曼诺夫先生住在上海,目前正在写一系列十本书,通常与中国和西方有关。他是辛西娅·麦金尼的新文集《当中国打喷嚏》的撰稿人之一。(第2章——与恶魔打交道)。

    His full archive can be seen at

    他的完整文章库可以在以下看到:

    https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/  + https://www.moonofshanghai.com/

    He can be contacted at:

    他的联系方式:

    2186604556@qq.com

    *

    This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.

    本文可能包含受版权保护的材料,其使用未经版权所有者特别授权。此内容根据合理使用原则提供,仅用于教育和信息目的。此内容没有商业用途。

    Copyright © Larry RomanoffBlue Moon of ShanghaiMoon of Shanghai, 2024

    版权所有 © 拉里·罗曼诺夫、上海蓝月亮、上海月亮,2024