李世默：中国崛起与“元叙事”的终结(全文)

第一篇：李世默：中国崛起与“元叙事”的终结(全文)

李世默：中国崛起与“元叙事”的终结

本文摘译自2013年6月13日TED全球论坛上题为China and the End of Meta-Narratives的演讲，作者是上海的风险投资家和政治学学者、春秋研究院研究员及中欧国际工商学院校董。

我出生在“文化大革命”高潮时的上海。

外婆后来告诉我，她当时抱着襁褓之中啼哭不止的我，心惊胆战地听着“武斗”的枪声。

在我少年时，我被灌输了一个关于人类社会发展规律的大故事，这个“元叙事”是这样说的：

所有的人类社会都遵循一个线性的目标明确的发展规律，即从原始社会开始，经由奴隶社会、封建社会、资本主义社会、社会主义社会，最终过渡到(猜猜这个终点？)共产主义社会。共产主义社会是人类政治、社会发展的最高阶段，所有的人类社会，不管民族、文化、语言有何异同，或早或晚都将演进到这一阶段。人类社会自此大同，彼此相亲相爱，永远过着幸福的生活——人间天堂。但在实现这样目标之前，我们必须投身于正义与邪恶的斗争，即正义的社会主义与邪恶的资本主义之间的斗争，正义终将胜利！

当然，这就是从马克思主义发展而来的社会发展阶段论，这一“元叙事”在中国影响甚广。

我们从小就被反复灌输了这个宏大故事，几乎融化到了血液之中，笃信不疑。

这个“元叙事”不仅征服了中国，也影响了全世界。世界上曾经有整整三分之一人在它笼罩之下。

然而，忽然一夜之间，苏联崩溃，世界沧桑巨变。

我赴美留学，改宗成为伯克利的嬉皮士，哈哈！

就这样，开启了我另一段成年经历，我又被灌输了一个全新的宏大叙事，仿佛我这辈子只经历那一个还不够似的。这个宏大叙事的完美程度与早前的那一个不分伯仲。它同样宣称，人类社会遵循着一个线性的发展规律，指向一个终极目标。叙事故事是这样展开的：

所有的人类社会，不论其文化有何异同，其民众是基督徒、穆斯林还是儒家信徒，都将从传统社会过渡到现代社会。在传统社会中，最基本的社会单位是家庭、氏族、部落等群体；而在现代社会中，最基本的、神圣不可侵犯的社会单位是原子化的个人。所有的个人都被认定为是理性的，都有同一个诉求：选举权！

因为每一个个人都是理性的，一旦有了权选举，必然会选出好政府，随后就可以在好政府的领导下，过上幸福的生活，相当于实现大同社会——又是一个人间天堂。选举民主制将成为所有国家和民族唯一的政治制度，再加上一个自由放任的市场让他们发财。当然，在实现这个目标之前，我们必须投身于正义与邪恶的斗争，即正义的民主与邪恶的不民主之间的斗争。前者肩负着在全世界推动民主的使命，必要时甚至可以动用武力，来打击那些不投票不选举的邪恶势力。

上述宏大叙事同样传播甚广。根据“自由之家”的统计，全世界采用选举民主制的国家，从1970年的45个已增至2010年的115个。近20多年来，西方的精英人士孜孜不倦地在全世界奔走，推荐选举民主这一救世良方。他们声称，实行多党选举是拯救发展中国家于水火的唯一良药，只要吃下它，就一定会实现繁荣，否则，永无翻身之日。

但这一次，中国敬谢不敏。

历史是最好的裁判。仅仅30多年间，中国就从世界上最贫困的农业国，一跃而为世界第二大经济体，实现6.5亿人脱贫。实际上，这期间全世界80%的减贫任务是由中国完成的。也就是说，如果没有中国的成绩，全世界的减贫成就不值一提。所有老的、新的民主国家的脱贫人口加起来，都不及中国一个零头。而取得这些成绩的中国，没有实行他们所谓的选举，也没有实行多党制。

所以，我禁不住问自己，我眼前画面到底哪里不对劲儿？我的故乡上海，一切都已今非昔比，新生企业如雨后春笋般发展起来，中产阶级以史无前例的速度和规模在增长。但根据西方的那个宏大叙事，这一切繁荣景象本不应该出现。

面对这一切，我开始做我唯一可以做的事，即思考它！

中国的确是个一党制的国家，由中国共产党长期执政，不实行西方意义上的选举。按照当代主流的政治理论，人们据此可以生成三个判断，即这个体制一定是僵化的、封闭的、不具合法性的。

但这些论断被证明是完全错误的。事实恰恰相反，中国的一党制具有与时俱进的能力、选贤任能的体制、深植于民心的政权合法性，这些是确保其成功的核心要素。

大多数政治学家断言，一党制天生缺乏自我纠错能力，因此很难持久。

但历史实践却证明这一断言过于自信。中共已经在中国这个世界上最大的国家之一连续执政64年，其政策调整的幅度超过近代任何国家。从激进的土改到“大跃进”运动，再到土地“准私有化”；从“文化大革命”到邓小平的市场化改革。邓小平的继任者江泽民更进一步，主动吸纳包括民营企业家在内的新社会阶层人士入党，而这在毛的时代是不可想象的。事实证明，中共具有超凡的与时俱进和自我纠错能力。

过去实行的一些不再有效的制度也不断得到纠正和更新。比如，政治领导人的任期制，毛时期，政治领导人实际上是终身任职的。这容易导致大权独揽、不受制约等问题。毛泽东作为现代中国的缔造者，在位晚年也未能避免犯下类似的严重错误。随后，中共逐步实施了领导人的任期制，并将任职的年龄上限确定为68到70岁。

最近很多人声称，相比于经济改革，中国的政治改革严重滞后，因此当前亟需在政改中取得突破。这一论断实际上是隐藏着政治偏见的话语陷阱，这个话语陷阱预设了哪些变革才

算所谓的政治改革，只有实行这些特定的变革才行。事实上，中国的政治改革从未停滞。与三十年、二十年，甚至十年前相比，中国从基层到高层，从社会各领域到国家治理方式上，都发生了翻天覆地的变化。如果没有根本性的政治改革，这一切变化都是不可能的。

我甚至想大胆地判断说，中共是世界第一流的政治改革专家。

西方主流的观点认为，一党制意味着政治上封闭，一小撮人把持了权力，必然导致劣政和腐败。的确，腐败是一个大问题。不过，让我们先打开视野看一下全景。说起来可能令人难以置信，中共内部选贤任能竞争之激烈程度，可能超过世界上所有的政治组织。

十八大前，中共的最高领导机构——中央政治局共有25名委员，其中只有5人出身背景优越，也就是所谓的“太子党”。其余20人，包括国家主席胡锦涛和政府总理温家宝，都是平民出身。再看300多人组成的十七届中央委员会，出身显赫者的比例更低。可以说，绝大多数中共高层领导人都是靠自身努力和激烈竞争获得晋升的。与其他发达国家和发展中国家统治精英的出身相比，我们必须承认中共内部平民出身的干部享有广阔的晋升空间。

中共如何在一党制的基础上保证选贤任能呢？关键之一是有一个强有力的组织机构，即组织部。对此西方鲜有人知。这套机制选贤任能的效力，恐怕最成功的商业公司都会自叹弗如。

它像一个旋转的金字塔，有三个部位组合而成。

中国的公务人员分为三类：即政府职能部门、国有企业，以及政府管辖的事业单位，如大学、社区组织等。公务人员既可以在某一类部门中长期工作，也可以在三类中交替任职。政府以及相关机构一年一度地从大学毕业生中招录人员，大部分新人会从最低一级的科员干起。组织部门会根据其表现，决定是否将其提升到更高的管理职位上，比如副科、科、副处、处。这可不是电影《龙威小子》中的动作名称，而是严肃的人事工作。

这一区间的职位包罗万象，既可以负责贫困农村的卫生工作，也可能负责城区里的招商引资，也可能是一家公司的基层经理。各级干部每年都要接受组织部门的考察，其中包括征求上级、下级和同事的反馈意见，以及个人操守审查，此外还有民意调查，最终择优提职。

在整个职业生涯中，中共的干部可以在政府职能部门、企业，以及社会事业单位等三大领域内轮转任职。在基层表现优秀的佼佼者可以晋升为副局和正局级干部，进入高级干部行列。这一级别的干部，有可能领导数百万人口的城区，也有可能管理年营业收入数亿美元的企业。从统计数据就可以看出选拔局级干部的竞争有多激烈，2012年，中国科级与副科级干部约为90万人，处级与副处级干部约为60万人，而局级与副局级干部仅为4万人。

在局级干部中，只有最为出众的极少数人才有机会继续晋升，最终进入中共中央委员会。就职业生涯来看，一位干部要晋升到高层，期间一般要经过二三十年的工作历练。这过程中有任人唯亲的问题吗，当然有。但从根本上，干部是否德才兼备才是提拔的决定性因素。事实上，中华帝国的官僚体系有着千年历史，今天中共的组织部门创造性地继承了这一独特的历史遗产，并发展成现代化的制度以培养当代中国的政治精英。

习近平的履历就是非常鲜明的例证。习的父亲确实是中共的一位前领导人，但他的仕途也历经了30年之久。习近平从村干部做起，一步一个脚印的走到今天这个岗位。在他进入中央政治局之前，他领导过的地区总人口累计已超过1.5亿，创造的GDP合计超过1.5万亿美元。

千万不要误解，这不是针对具体的人，仅仅是事实的陈述。如果要论政府管理经验，小布什在任德州州长前和奥巴马第一次问鼎美国总统时，他们资历还比不上中国一个小县长。

温斯顿·丘吉尔曾说：“民主是个坏制度，但其他制度更坏”。可惜，他没有见识过组织部。

西方人总认为多党竞选和普选是合法性的唯一来源。曾有人问我：“中共不经选举执政，其合法性从何而来？”我的回答是：“舍我其谁的执政能力。”

我们都知道历史，1949年中共执政时，由于战火肆虐，外敌横行，中国的国土四分五裂，满目疮痍；中国人的人均寿命仅为41岁。但在今天，中国已跻身世界第二大经济体，成为在全球有重要影响的大国，人民生活迅速改善，人均寿命排名奇迹般地列中等发达国家前茅。

根据皮尤研究中心在中国的民意调查报告，其中一些数据反映了中国的主流民意，其中大部分数据在近几十年来十分稳定。

高达85%的中国民众，对国家未来方向表示满意；70%的民众认为在过去的五年生活得到改善；82%的民众对未来五年颇感乐观。

英国《金融时报》刚刚公布的全球青年人民调结果显示：93%的中国90后年轻人对国家的未来感到乐观。

如果这不是合法性，那我就不知道到底什么才是合法性了。

相比之下，全世界大部分选举民主制国家都处于惨淡经营的境况。关于美国和欧洲的政治困境，在座的听众都了然于胸，无需我再详述。除了极少数例外，大部分采用选举的发展中国家，迄今为止还在遭受贫困和战火的折磨。政府通过选举上台后，其支持率在几个月内就会跌到50%以下，从此一蹶不振甚至持续走低，直到下一次选举。可以说，民主已经陷入“一次选举，长期后悔”的周期性怪圈。这样下去，失去合法性的恐怕不是中国的一党制，而是选举民主制。

当然，我不想造成一种误会，认为中国成为超级大国已经指日可待了。中国当前面临重大挑战，巨大变迁带来的经济、社会问题数不胜数，譬如环境污染，食品安全、人口问题。在政治领域，最大的挑战是腐败。

目前，腐败猖獗，危及中国的政治制度及其道德合法性。但是，很多分析人士误判了腐

败的原因，他们声称腐败是一党制导致的，只有终结一党制才能根绝腐败。更严谨一点儿的分析将证明这种观点毫无根据。

据透明国际发布的全球清廉指数排名，中国近年来的排名在第70到80名之间。印度是世界上人口最多的选举民主制国家，排名第95位，且逐年下滑；希腊排名第80位；印度尼西亚与阿根廷排名并列第100位；菲律宾排名第129位。排名在中国后的约100个国家中，超过一半是选举民主制国家。如果选举是根治腐败的万灵药，为何在这么多国家不灵呢？

我是做风险投资的，长于预测。因此，不做几个预测就结束今天的讨论似乎不妥。以下是我的三个预测：

未来十年：

1.中国将超过美国成为世界第一大经济体，按人均收入计算也将在发展中国家里名列前茅。2.腐败虽然无法根绝，但将得到有效控制。在透明国际的全球清廉指数排行榜上，中国有望继续提升10到20名，跨入全球最清廉的前60国之列。3.经济改革会加速实施，政治改革也将继续推进，中共仍稳固执政。

我们正在见证一个时代的落幕。共产主义和选举民主制，都是基于普世价值的“元叙事”。在20世纪，我们见证了前者因极端教条而失败；到21世纪，后者正重蹈同样的覆辙。“元叙事”就像癌症一样，正在从内部吞噬民主。我想澄清一下，我并不是要谴责民主。相反，我认为民主政治对西方的崛起和现代世界的诞生居功至伟。然而，很多西方精英把某一种民主形式模式化、普世化，这是西方当前各种病症的病灶所在。如果西方的精英不是将大把的时间花在向外国推销民主上，而是更多关心一下自身的政治改革，恐怕民主还不至于像今天这样无望。

中国的政治模式不可能取代选举民主，因为中国从不将自己的政治制度包装成普世通用的模式，也不热衷于对外输出。进一步说，中国模式的重要意义，不在于为世界各国提供了一个可以替代选举民主的新模式，而在于从实践上证明了良政的模式不是单一而是多元的，各国都有可能找到适合本国的政治制度。

让我们为“元叙事”的时代画个句号吧。共产主义和民主可能都是人类最美好的追求，但它们普世化的教条时代已经过去。我们的下一代，不需要被灌输说，世界上只有一种政治模式，所有社会都只有一种归宿。这是错误的，不负责任的，也是乏味的。多元化正在取代普世化。一个更精彩的时代正缓缓拉开帷幕，我们有没有勇气拥抱它呢？

第二篇：李世默演讲观后感

如果他们在台下

——李世默演讲观后感

白荷菲 201355003

笔者总结李世默的演讲，主要有两个方面的内容：

1、元叙事危害着社会的正常发展。无论是原始社会到共产主义社会的单线发展叙事还是传统社会到现代社会选举创造民主美好社会的单一导向叙事都与现实相左，且引导社会走向极端的深渊。

2、中国共产党领导下的中国模式前景是美好的。不同于西方认为的僵化、封闭和不具合法性，中国的一党制模式具备自我纠错能力，能够不断进行政治改革，与时俱进；能够通过一套成熟的党内机制选贤任能；而且以其卓越的竞争力赢得合法性，获得民心。

下面，笔者将试图以哈耶克、伯林、罗尔斯和施密特的立场和观点来看待李世默的这一场演讲。作一个大胆的假设，如果这四位政治思想家当时都坐在台下，他们应该会对演讲的内容褒贬不一，但至少不是全盘否定的。

哈耶克大概是会赞成李世默对元叙事的辛辣讽刺的，因为这完全契合哈耶克认为的人无法克服其无知，人的理性是有限的。且不论是否真的存在社会发展的标准路线，即使存在人们也无法认识或验证。而哈耶克推崇的演进理性主义更是相信社会秩序是在人与人、人与自然的复杂互动中经过漫长的无目标的过程逐渐生成的，元叙事否定偶然性、否定演化过程的自生自发，无疑会受到哈耶克的批驳。在笔者看来，柏林对“积极自由”的警惕批判，认为若信奉积极自由最终的一个可能是会迫使他人自由，这与哈耶克的演进理性主义不无共通之处，在人类社会发展的层面上来看便是反对元叙事。伯林观点让人对元叙事不由得产生恐惧，若单一线性发展路线被个体或群体认定为“真理”，那么“没有人有权反对理性”，加诸于异见者身上的一切便具备了强制性与合法性。而罗尔斯对理性多元论的承认也让笔者相信其对元叙事是不屑一顾的，然而罗尔斯的自由主义观点集中于对公平正义的论证，笔者未能了解到更多与李世默这一观点相关的内容。施密特虽与前三者不同处于一个阵营，但他却从另一个角度对元叙事给予了批判，施密特坚信历史的发展是由一个又一个的“非常状态”构成的，主权者的决断在其中发挥着至关重要的作用，那么认为每一个社会的非常状态都将有同样的结果、每一位主权者的决断都将趋同也就荒诞不羁了。

行文至此，笔者发现，虽属于政治思想的不同阵营，但不论是自由主义还是保守主义的学者都倾向于赞同演讲中的第一个观点，即社会发展并非一个元叙事。而这也逐渐成为当今社会的普世价值，在这个时代若仍处处提意识形态的根本对立也越来越显得不合时宜。想来具有智慧的政治思想家们早就不在元叙事行不通这一点共识上进行争论了，尽管他们中的不少人仍然坚信社会主义远不及资本主义。

然而当落脚到具体的中国模式，思想家们的分歧也许就小不了了。在此抛开自由主义学者对社会主义的根本排斥，笔者希望将各位思想家思想中的具体观点对应上中国模式的特点和元素并加以分析。当然，今日的“中国模式”已不同于他们那个时代计划经济的社会主义了，也正因此才有探讨的价值。天马行空一想，四位学者若能目睹今日世界上的特例，其学说不知又会发生什么样的变革。由此推想，中国模式应当对政治思想界产生相当大的冲击才是，对自由主义等各学派的进一步发展也当产生影响，何以目前尚未在学术界形成一股潮流，亦或已在酝酿之中也未可知，这值得笔者进行更多的了解和学习。

哈耶克虽不会像批判纳粹主义一般指责当今中国，但对中国特色社会主义市场经济定是不会支持的，因为看得见的手的作用仍然巨大，与哈耶克所提倡的完全自由市场有一定距离。另一可能是哈耶克也许会视中国的改革方向是披着社会主义外衣的资本主义，一如现在颇有说服力的一派观点，认为中国已不是社会主义国家。而对于李世默提及的中国共产党的自我纠错能力，凭借哈耶克对构建理性主义的驳斥他是一定不会赞同的，因为这种自我纠错能力毕竟强调的是共产党内部的力量，很大程度上取决于人为努力和自我约束。坚持法治为自由护航的哈耶克对演讲中所提及的以现实竞争力获得合法性想必也不会赞成，中国共产党的选贤举能机制存在着实质法律的因素，即便具有法律依据却不符合哈耶克所说的法治。法治的确是当下中国模式最大的漏洞之一。李世默的演讲有回避这一问题的倾向，但中国要真的实现他所作的预测在十年内获得那些成就，法治是必须直面的。这里所说的直面并不只是强调其重要性，而是将解决宪法和中国共产党的关系问题提到日程上来。

中国共产党选贤任能的机制亦与伯林对消极自由和积极自由的界定相关，柏林大概会认为中国共产党所谓的党内民主很可能是摧毁个人主权的看上去科学有效的途径，实际上则走上了积极自由的危险道路，中国共产党对自我纠正能力越有信心，这套纠偏机制就越接近于绝对理性，而且会有数不清的现实理由为之作辩护。然而，伯林的多元论思想却是对中国模式有所包容的。笔者也同意其承认人类价值目标多样但并非无限，且不能错误指向相对主义的观点。中国模式的开创者邓小平“不管黑猫白猫抓到老鼠就是好猫”的话语在此维度上意义重大。

罗尔斯的政治自由主义学说认为自由宪政不是各种社会力量博弈而取得暂时妥协的结果，强调了公民对政体的理性基础的理解与支持才是政体合法性能够稳固的保证。这为人们提供了对李世默中国共产党的合法性来源论述的思考角度。在夺取政权和巩固政权的许多关键时刻中国共产党在博弈中都取得了胜利，然而这样的竞争力就足以构成合法性了吗？如果论及对其理性基础的理解和支持，又如何判断呢？李世默给出的民意调查结构一定程度上或许可以反映真实情况，然而自上而下的调查就能替代自下而上的承认吗？笔者对此仍然存有疑惑。而罗尔斯两个正义原则中争议最大的第二原则，强调公平优先于效率，则正是对中国模式现存的贫富悬殊和腐败问题的叩问。如果这位学者当时坐在台下，也许会对这一现象进行诟病。

施密特的“非常状态”理论让笔者感触颇多。而反思中国共产党的执政历程，历史又何尝不是由非常状态来决定的呢，这在新中国的六十四年中尤为明显，中国的发展都带有每一代领导人鲜明的印记，这似乎与去人格化的趋势是背道而行的。那么，在施密特看来，是不是就可以说一个政党或者政府的合法性很大程度上就取决于主权者在非常状态下的决断呢？这在中国模式的语境下，就是说中国共产党是否有民意的基础不能仅看经济成就，不能仅考察其日常的民意支持度，更要研究其在非常时刻的决断是否符合人民的根本利益。也许这让人对中国未来的判断蒙上了一丝保守主义的悲观色彩，然而，笔者却认为这个角度的思考是有利的，有助于安全的。

以上是笔者在观看李世默演讲后结合当代西方政治思潮这一门课程所得出的一些感想。非要用这四位政治思想家的观点去看待和评论这一场演讲虽然稍有牵强，但是笔者所想要表达的是，这些学说和观点对于研究当今中国模式仍有重要价值，并不因其所属的是自由主义或保守主义阵营便能断论，学术界需要的是将他们的学说分条理析地与中国当下实情作一一的对应研究，而中国模式也必将对政治学思想领域的发展产生冲击。

第三篇：2016李世默在清华演讲稿全文

2016李世默在清华演讲稿全文

李世默在清华演讲稿全文，2016年，李世默在清华大学时事大讲堂上，借用五位政治学学者的理论，分析认为21世纪是靠改革竞争的世纪，中国共产党领导的中国必将在此竞争中脱颖而出，因为正处在少年期的中国政治体制在全世界大国中最具有改革能力。在演讲中一起上了一堂“从全球政治学视野看中国共产党与改革”的公开课从全球政治学视野看中国共产党与改革“为题从全球政治学视野看中国共产党与改革”为题李世默在清华演讲稿全文

大家下午好，很开心来清华和同学们交流。我不是老师，我是生意人，但赚钱以外，我的业余爱好是研究中国共产党。首先，我要声明我不是中国共产党党员，小时候试过，但可能因为生活作风有问题，被拒绝了(笑)。后来入党未成，一不小心当上了资本家。我平时是周一到周五做资本家，周六周日研究中国共产党。今天我跟大家分享我这些年研究中共的一点——不能说是学问——只是一些心得，希望大家能够对我的心得提出意见和批判。

我要讲的题目是《从全球政治学视野看中国共产党与改革》。政治学，英语叫politicalscience，就是政治科学，但政治学是一门软科学，就是用科学的方式来研究社会，研究政治，研究软的东西

那么科学的方式是什么呢?一般的科学方式是：第一步是要设立一个假定，拿这个假定到实验室里去验证，有的假定被验证出是对的，有的假定被验证出是错的。验证了对的假定可能成为理论。过一段时间又有人有新的假定，新的假定被验证以后就推翻以前的理论，成为新的理论。科学就是这样发展的。我今天讲的所有内容都只是假定。

今天的假定是：全世界都需要改革。

21世纪是一个在改革中竞争的时代。能成功改革的国家将是赢家，改革失败的国家将是输家。

在这场改革竞争中，中国共产党领导的中国将在全球大国中脱颖而出。所以，21世纪是中国的世纪。

全世界几乎所有国家都面临治理危机，从发达国家到发展中国家，都在说“我们需要改革，不改革不行了”。可是几乎在所有国家，改革都陷入了巨大的困境，举步维艰，四面楚歌，为什么?

我想借用五位世界一流的政治学学者的眼光来讲这个题目。塞缪尔·亨廷顿：政治衰败

塞缪尔·亨廷顿《变化社会中的政治秩序》

第一位叫塞缪尔·亨廷顿，大家都知道他写的《文明的冲突与世界秩序的重建》，但在政治学里我觉得他最好的著作是《变化社会中的政治秩序》。亨廷顿发明了一个概念叫“政治衰败”(politicaldecay)，这是近代政治学里很重要的一个概念。

亨廷顿在《变化社会中的政治秩序》里研究了二战以后新独立的国家，这些国家的大环境在发生巨大的变迁，可是他们的政治制度不能相应地改变，去适应新的环境。这种情况下，就发生了政治衰败。他还说在体制很稳定、很成功的情况下也会发生政治衰败。意思就是说，现有政治体制发生了所谓的固化，固化到一定程度，环境发生了变化，社会发生了变化，世界变了，可是政治体制没有办法去推动质的变化来适应外部环境和社会内在的变化，那么这个政治体制就发生了政治衰败。

曼瑟尔·奥尔森《国家兴衰探源》

第二位叫曼瑟尔·奥尔森，他的代表作是《国家兴衰探源》。他创造的概念叫“分利联盟”(distributivecoalition)。

奥尔森在《国家兴衰探源》里研究民主体制，他说民主体制里边必然出现利益集团，这些利益集团通过多年不断积累权力，形成分利联盟。意思就是利益集团权力强大到一定程度，他们可以寻租，他们可以俘获甚至操控政治体制，使政治体制为分利联盟的利益服务，而不是为整体利益服务，甚至以损害整体利益为代价来维护分利联盟的利益。奥尔森说在民主体制里，分利联盟俘获政治体制这个问题是一个无解的困境。只有两种东西可以打破这个困境，一个是革命，一个是外部的冲击。如战争。这是非常悲观的一个角度，无解。

弗朗西斯·福山：否决制

弗朗西斯·福山《政治秩序的起源》、《政治秩序和政治衰败》

第三位叫弗朗西斯·福山，最近两/fanwen/1545本书叫《政治秩序的起源》与《政治秩序和政治衰败》。福山把前两个人所创造的概念——“政治衰败”和“分利联盟”——组合起来讨论政治衰败。

第一，他说政治衰败在任何政治体制内部都可能发生，无论是威权体制还是民主体制。福山说，现代治理需要三大要素：一是强政府，二是法治，三是民主问责。

福山说美国现在正处于政治衰败中，原因之一是当代美国是强法治、强民主、弱政府。而这个局面使得美国无法推进急需的改革。

福山还提到两种问责制，一种叫自下而上的问责制，一种叫自上而下的问责制，两种制度各有优劣。

自下而上的问责制即通常说的民主制度，你不好老百姓把你选下去。它的优势在于有一个自动回应机制，你做的不好老百姓可以选另外一位。它的劣势在于分利联盟，福山又创造了一个新词叫“否决制”——“Vetocracy”，就是分利联盟把持政治体制，为了维护自己的利益，损害集体的利益。“Vetocracy”其实就是中国人说的，成事不足败事有余。自上而下的问责制，也许中国是自上而下的问责制，私人企业也是自上而下的问责制，它有强大的执行力，这来自于政治独立性，就是福山说的“politicalautonomy”。它的困境和弊端，第一是信息的困境，底下的人不把正确的信息给老板，老板摸不清楚下面到底怎么回事，导致决策错误。第二是福山说的所谓的“坏皇帝”的风险，老板出问题了怎么办?

福山说改革在美国正在失败，美国没有办法改革。为什么?他举了一些原因。第一，民主和透明成了美国改革的绊脚石。美国太多的公众参与，太多的透明，也就是说太多的民主，使这个国家的改革寸步难行。

第二，公民社会在某种程度上也不利于美国的改革。公民社会孵化了利益集团的形成，利益集团积累权力形成分利联盟，分利联盟导致否决制。在这样的公民社会里，只要有一个分利联盟不喜欢一件事，它就能把这件事给黄了。要所有人都觉得没问题才能做，结果是什么事都做不成，改革更做不成。

第三，是法治。美国的法治出现了治理的司法化。就是说所有的政治、所有治理都要通过立法。立法的过程遭到分利联盟的俘获，即便立了法，分利联盟再通过司法程序百般阻挠它的执行。

最后，是自由。福山说自由和特权是一步之遥，一不小心自由就变成了特权。美国最高法院今年判决说政治献金没有上限，这是宪法说的言论自由。就是说我自己合法赚来的钱，为什么不能在电视上买广告，说某某政客好，说哪些政策好，哪些政策不好?给政治献金设上限是违反言论自由的。而维护言论自由的后果是什么呢?当然是越有钱越牛，所以自由与特权是一步之遥。

王绍光：中国式共识型决策

王绍光《中国式共识型决策》

第四位政治学学者，是王绍光，他是香港中文大学的教授。他研究国家能力和国家建设。他近期的著作叫《中国式共识型决策》。王老师用中国在2016年启动的医保改革为案例，仔细阐述了当代中国的政治体制如何超越利益集团，成功推动改革。

中国治理模式的三大要素

我认为中国的治理模式有三大核心要素。

一是贤能治理。这是理想状态，贤能治理也会出问题。中国选贤任能的模式，就是中国的官员来自于草根，最有能耐的人通过这个体系一步步往上爬，最终进入中国的最高治理阶层。

二是实验治理。中国几十年来推/fanwen/1545行很多政策，都是从小地方先试起来。失败了就算了。成功了就让各个地方学，再成功了就全国推广。失败的成本较低。这样的实验治理只能在中央集权的国家才能实现，在美国不可能，你在旧金山实验一个东西成了，然后华盛顿让麻省也试，做不到的。

三是回应治理。有没有能力回应人民的需求，回应制度到底健康不健康。据我了解，中共其实有非常复杂和有效及时的反应机制。

三中全会是政治改革的又一个里程碑

中国30多年的改革开放，取得巨大的成就，也面临巨大挑战。

经济挑战非常严峻，中国经济模式走到现在创造了巨大的财富，但这个模式要改。环境变了，经济结构变了，所以要改变这个经济结构，可是在改变过程中增长率就会下降，又会引发其他问题。这个平衡怎么掌握，很难。

腐败是一个巨大的挑战。环境也是巨大的挑战。这么大规模，这么快速工业化，人类历史上前所未有，造成的环境问题是巨大的。

三中全会好像有600多条改革的政策，国企改革、土地改革、法律改革、经济改革。三中全会开完后，很多学者、媒体都说中国开始实施大胆的经济改革，可是政治改革停滞不前甚至开倒车。我觉得这是一个误读。

我觉得三中全会启动了中国几十年来最大胆的政治改革。很多人把政治改革的定义定死了，认为只有往某种方向去改变的政策才叫政治改革，朝其他方向作的改变，再巨大也不叫政治改革。但如果把政治改革作为一个中性词，就是对政治体制动刀，对政治体制做质的改变，我想三中全会是一个里程碑。

为什么是里程碑?我认为有三方面。

一是中央和地方政府权力分配发生了巨大变化。三中全会比较重要的一点就是国家预算，以前中国的国家税收只有一半在中央政府手里，这次把它变成了全国的预算，这是巨大的权力再分配。

二是党纪和国法的权力分配发生了巨大变化。三中全会对中纪委进行了重组，把地方纪委的决策权力从地方党委那里抽出来。这又是一个巨大的权力再分配。

三是党和国家的关系发生了巨大变化。1949年建国时引进的苏联模式“三驾马车”——人大对应最高苏维埃、党中央对应苏共党中央、国务院对应苏联的部长联席会。三中全会——我认为——把三驾马车的格局打破了。国家成立了很多领导小组和委员会，都是党中央在领导。比如，中央国家安全委员会，负责国内国外的安全;深化改革领导小组，负责经济改革政策。这是一个惊人的权力再分配，是一个巨大的政治改革。中国共产党走到了中国国家治理的前台中央。

所以，我觉得三中全会是中国改革历程中一个巨大的里程碑，很多人把新中国的60多年分成两个30年，我觉得三中全会启动了第三个30年。第三个30年最重要的两个方向：一是政治治理的完善，一是全方位民族复兴。中国政治体制改革的原动力

近些年来，政治学里流行的说法是，选举民主制国家最善于自我纠正，也就是改革，因为能够通过选举更换执政党。但是现实却恰恰相反。民主国家普遍陷入治理危机和改革困境。而中国呢?

回顾中华人民共和国的65年历史，在中共的一党领导下，中国经历的政治、经济变革，幅度和深度是近代史上罕见的，远远超出几乎所有其他国家，包括所有民主选举制的国家。为什么?我认为这是中国政治体制的独特性质的结果。在中国，核心是中国共产党，中共本身就是中国的政治体制。中国是世界上大国中唯一的一个拥有这么一个独立于社会又同时来自于社会的政治力量，正如福山所说的，politicalautonomy。中共来自于中国社会的草根，又高于中国社会的所有利益集团，这个机制就是中国改革的原动力。

尼可罗·马基雅维利：

每种政治制度都有它衰败的一面

尼可罗·马基雅维利《论李维》

回到最开始我说要跟大家分享五位政治学家，前面讲了四位，都是我们同时代的人。

第五位是一位古人，这位古人是政治学的泰斗，没有他就没有政治学，他叫尼可罗·马基雅维利，是500年前佛洛伦萨共和国的外交长官。美第奇家族复辟以后，把他打入监狱，施以酷刑，然后将他流放到乡村。在写给友人弗兰西斯科·维托里的信中，马基雅维利讲述了自己的流放生活。在漫长而平静的日子里，每当夜深人静的时候，马基雅维利总会换上宫廷的华服，进入自己的书房。在那里，他废寝忘食地阅读先哲遗篇，与古贤心照神交。只有在那样的漫漫长夜里，他才感觉不到饥饿干渴，也不再惧怕死亡。在那里，他写下了流传百世的代表作《论李维》，这本书是所有政治学的基石。

他在这本书里，把全世界所有政治制度归纳成三种：一是君主制;一是贵族制，他说的贵族制是希腊语的贵族，就是我们讲的选贤任能或贤能制，不是后来欧洲出现的世袭制的贵族;三是民主制。

他说每一种政治制度都能够表现得非常好，可是每一种政治制度都有它衰败的一面。君主制会衰败成暴政，贵族制会衰败成寡头制，民主制会衰败成放荡制。

我想留给大家的一个想法，就是也许世界上没有永远的东西。我们研究政治学，研究任何一个国家的政治体制，最值得研究的就是这个政治体制在它的生命周期里，是在哪个点上。如果在少年期那是一种预测，如果在中年期和老年期就是另一种预测。在现实中，也许没有一个政治体制是永恒的。每一个政治体制，不管是君主制也好，贵族制也好，民主制也好——中国现在实行的也许是贤能制，美国是民主制——所有这些政治体制最终都可能走向衰败/fanwen/1545，就像人的身体一样。政治学的基础就是，把政治体制、社会当人的身体一样研究。把政治体制比作人的身体，就像人小时候经常生病，每年都感冒，病历卡很厚，但是一到发育的时候什么病都没有了，到七八十岁病又回来了，也就临近死亡了。

我经常把当代中国比作美国100多年前，100多年前的美国也在发生巨大的变革，快速地工业化，那个时候的美国，它的腐败、它的暴力远远超过今天的中国，但那个时候的美国，它的政治体制在它的少年期，那些再严重的问题也没能阻挡它成为超级大国。中国的政治体制也有很多问题。每个人身体里边都有癌细胞，就看它什么时候出来。每个政治体制的基因里边也有癌细胞。我的假定是，中国的政治体制在少年期。美国政治体制，以及整个西方的政治体制，倒是一个值得研究的问题，它们肯定不处在少年期。我们要研究的问题就是西方发达国家的政治体制，在它们的生命周期里边是中年期还是晚年期?如果美国的政治体制是一个50岁的人，它还有一次机会可以重新复兴。如果是80岁呢，就像福山讲的那样，政治衰败就是眼前的宿命。

中国的政治体制处在少年期，它具有巨大的活力——也就是改革的能力，21世纪是中国的世纪。

以上这篇李世默在清华演讲稿全文为您介绍到这里，希望它对您有帮助。如果您喜欢这篇文章，请分享给您的好友。更多演讲尽在：精彩演讲望大家多支持本网站，谢谢

第四篇：李世默--两种制度的传说

Good morning, and my name is Eric Li, and I was born here.No, I wasn’t born there;this was whereI was born.Shanghai, at the height of the Cultural Revolution.My grandmother tells me that she heard the sound of gunfire along with my first cries.When I was growing up, I was told a story that explained all I ever needed to know about humanity.It went like this.All human society develop in linear progression, beginning with primitive society, then slave society, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, and finally, guess where we end up? Communism!Sooner or later, all of humanity, regardless of the culture, language, nationality, will arrive at this final stage of political and social development.The entire world’s people will be unified in this paradise on earth and live happily ever after.But before we get there, we’re engaged in a struggle between good and evil, the good of socialism against the evil of capitalism, and the good shall triumph.That of course, was the meta-narrative distilled from the theories of Karl Marx.And the Chinese bought it.We were taught the grand story day in and day out.It became part of us, and we believed in it.The story was a bestseller.About one third of the entire world’s population lived under that meta-narrative.Then the world changed overnight.As for me, disillusioned by the failed religion of my youth, I went to America and became a Berkeley hippie.Now, as I was coming of age, something else happened.As if one big story wasn’t enough, I was told another one.This one was just as grand.It also claims that all human societies develop in a linear progression towards a singular end.This one went as follows: all societies, regardless of culture, be a Christian, Muslim, Confucian, must progress from traditional societies in which groups are the basic units to modern societies in which atomized individuals are the sovereign units, and all these individuals are, by definition, rational, and they all want one thing: the vote.Because they are all rational, once given the vote, they produce the good government and live happily ever after.Paradise on earth,again.Sooner or later, electoral democracy will be the only political system for all countries and all peoples, with a free market to make them all rich.But before we get there, we’re engaged in a struggle between good and evil.The good belongs to those who are democracies and charged with a mission of spreading it around the globe, sometimes by force, against the evil of those who do not hold elections.This story also became a bestseller.According to the Freedom House, the number of democracies went from 45 in 1970 to 115 in 2010.In the last 20 years, Western elites tirelessly trotted around the globe selling this prospectus: multiple parties fight for political power and everyone voting on then is the only path to salvation to the long-suffering developing world.Those who buy the prospectus are destined for success.Those who do not are doomed to fail.But this time, the Chinese did not buy it.Fool me once, the rest is history.In just 30 years, China went from one of the poorest agricultural countries in the world to a second-largest economy.650 million people were lifted out of poverty.80% of the entire world’s poverty alleviation during that period happened in China.In other words, all the new and old democracies put together amounted to a mere fraction of what a single, one-party state did without voting.See, I grew up on this stuff: food stamps.Meat was rationed to a few hundred grams per person per month at one point.Needless to say, I ate all my grandmother’s portions.So I ask myself, what is wrong with this picture? Here I am in my hometown, my business growing leaps and bound.Entrepreneurs are starting companies every day.Middle class is expending in speed and scale unprecedented in human history.Yet, according to the grand story, none of this should be happening.So I went and did the only thing I could.I studied it.Yes, China is a one party state run by the Chinese Communist Party, the Party, and they don’t hold elections.Three assumptions are made by the dominant political theories of our time.Such a system is operationally rigid, politically closed, and morally illegitimate.Well, the assumptions are wrong.The opposites are true.Adaptability, meritocracy, and legitimacy are the three defining characteristics of China’s one-party system.Now most political scientists will tell us that a one-party system is inherently incapable of self-correction.It won’t last long because it cannot adapt.Now here is the facts.In 64 years of running the largest country in the world, the range of the party’s policies has been wider than another country in the recent memory, from radical land collectivization to the Great Leap Forward, then the privatization of farmland, then the Cultural revolution, then Deng Xiaoping’s market reform, then successor Jiang Zemin took the giant political step of opening up party membership to private businesspeople, something unimaginable during Mao’s rule.So the party self-corrects in rather dramatic fashions.Institutionally, new rules get enacted to correct previous dysfunctions.For example, term limits.Political leaders used to retain their positions for life, and they used that to accumulate power and perpetuate their rules.Mao was the father of modern China, yet his prolonged rule les to disastrous mistakes.So the party instituted term limits with mandatory retirement age of 68 to 70.One thing we often hear is political reforms have lagged far behind economic reforms and China is in dire need of political reform.But this claim is a rhetorical trap hidden behind a political bias.See, some have decide a priori what kinds of change they want to see, and only such changes can be called political reform.The truth is political reform have never stopped.Compared with 30 years ago, 20 years ago, even 10years ago, every aspect of Chinese society how the country is governed, from the most local level to the highest center, are unrecognizable today.Now such changes are simply not possible without political reforms of the most fundamental kind.Now I would venture to suggest the Party is the world’s leading expert in political reform.The second assumption is that in a one-party state, power gets concentrated in the hand of the few, and bad governance and corruption follow.Indeed, corruption is a big problem.But let’s first look at the larger context.Now this may be counterintuitive to you.The party happens to be one of the most meritocratic political institutions in the world today.China’s highest ruling body, the Politburo, has 25 members.In the most recent one, only five of them came from a background of privilege, so-called princelings.The other 20, including the President and the Premier, came from entirely ordinary backgrounds.In the larger central committee of 300 or more, the percentage of those who were born into power and wealth was even smaller.The vast majority of senior Chinese leaders worked and competed their way to the top.Compare that with the ruling elites in both developed and developing countries, I think you will find the Party being near the top in upward mobility.The question then is, how could that be possible in a system run by one party? Now we come to a powerful political institution, little-known to Westerners: the Party’s Organization Department.The Department functions like a giant human resource engine that would be the envy of even some of the most successful corporations.It operates a rotating pyramid made up of three components: civil service, state-owned enterprises, and social organizations like university or community program.They form separate yet integrated career paths for Chinese officials.They recruit college grads into entry-level positions in all three tracks, and they start from the bottom, called keyuan.Then they could get promoted through four increasingly elite ranks: fuke, ke, fuchu, and chu.Now these are not moves from karate kids, okay? It’s serious business.The range of position is wide, from running health care in a village to foreign investment in a city distract to manger in a company.Once a year, the department reviews their performance.They interview their superiors, their peers, their subordinates.They vet their personal conduct.They conduct public opinion surveys.Then they promote the winners.Throughout their careers, these cadres can move through and out of all three tracks.Over time, the good ones move beyond the four base levels to the fuju, and ju levels.There, they enter high officialdom.By that point, a typical assignment will be to manage a distract with population in the millions or a company with hundreds of millions of millions of dollars in revenue.Just show you how competitive the system is, in 2012, there were 900,000 fuke and ke levels, 600,000 fuchu and chu levels, and onlu 40,000 fuju and ju levels.Afer the ju levels, the best few move further up several more ranks, and eventually make it to the Central Committee.The process takes a two to three decades.Does patronage play a role? Yes, of course.But merit remains the fundamental driver.In essence, the Organization Department runs a modernized version of China’s centuries-old mandarin system.China’s new president, Xi Jinping, is a son of a former leader, which is very unusual, first of his kind to make the top job.Even for him, the career tool a 30 years.He started as a village manager, and by the time he entered the Politburo, he had managed areas with total population of 150 million people and combined GDPs of 1.5 trillion US dollars.Now, please don’t get me wrong, okay? This is not a putdown of anyone, it is just a statement of fact.George W.Bush, remember him? This is not a putdown.Before becoming Governor of Texas, or Barack Obama before running for President, could not make even a small county manager in China’s system.Winston Churchill once said that democracy is a terrible system except for all the rest.Well, apparently he hadn’t heard of the Organization Department.Now, westerners always assume that multi-party election with universal suffrage is the only source of political legitimacy.I was asked once, “the party wasn’t voted in by election.Where is the source of legitimacy?”Isaid, “how about competency?” we all know the facts.In 1949, when the party took power, China was mired in civil wars, dismembered by foreign aggression, average life expectancy at that time, 41 years old.Today it is the second largest economy in the world, an industrial powerhouse, and its people live in increasing prosperity.Pew research polls Chinese public attitudes and here are the numbers in recent years.Satisfaction with the direction of the country: 85 percent.Those who think they’re better off than five years ago: 70%.Those who expect the future to be better a whopping 82%.Financial Times polls global youth attitudes, and these numbers, brand new, just came from last week.93% of China’s Generation Y are optimistic about their country’s future.Now if this is not legitimacy, I’m not sure what is.In contrast, most electoral democracies around the world are suffering from dismal performance.Idon’t need to elaborate this audience how dysfunctional it is from Washington to European capitals.With a few exceptions, the vast number of the developing countries that have adopted electoral regimes are still suffering from poverty and civil strife.Governments get elected, and then they fall below 50 percent approval in a few months and stay there and get worse until the next election.Democracy is becoming a perpetual cycle of elect and regret.At this rate, I’m afraid it is democracy, not China’s one-party system, that is in danger of losing legitimacy.Now I don’t want to create the misimpression that China’s hunky-dory on the way to some kind of superpowerdom.The country faces enormous challenges.Social and economic problems that come with wrenching change like this are mind-boggling.Pollution is one, food safety, population issues.On the political front, the worst problem is corruption.Corruption is widespread and undermines the system and its legitimacy.But most analystmis-diagnose the disease.They say the corruption is the result of the one-party system, and therefore in order to cure it you have to do away with the entire system.But more careful look would tell us otherwise.Transparency International ranks China between 70 and 80 in recent years among 170 countries, and it’s still moving up.India, the largest democracy in the world, is 94 and dropping.For the hundreds or so countries that are ranked below China, more than half of them are electoral democracies.So if election is the panacea for corruption, how come these countries cannot fix it? Now, I’m a venture capitalist.I make bets.It wouldn’t be fair to end this talk without putting myself on the line and making some predictions.So here they are.In the next 10 years, China will surpass the US and become the largest economy in the world;income per capital will be near the top of all developing countries.Corruption will be curbed, not eliminated and China will move up 10-20 notches to above 60 in TI ranking.Economic reform will accelerate, political reform will continue, and the one-party system will be holding firm.We live in the dust of an era.Meta-narratives that make universal claims failed us in the 20th century and are failing us in the 21st.meta-narrative is the cancer that is killing democracy from the inside.Now I want to clarify something.I’m not here to make an indictment of democracy.On the contrary, I think democracy contributed to the rise of the west and the creation of the modern world.It is the universal claim that many western elites are making about their political system, the hubris, that is the heart of the West’s current ills.If they would spend just a little less time on trying to force their way onto others, and a little bit more on political reform at home, they might give their democracy a better chance.China’s political model will never supplant electoral democracy, because unlike the latter, it doesn’t pretend to be universal.It cannot be exported.But that is the point precisely.The significance of China’s example is not that it provides and alternative but the demonstration that alternatives exist.Let us draw to a close this era of meta-narratives.Communism and democracy may both be laudable ideals, but the era of their dogmatic universalism is over.Let us stop telling people and our children there is only one way to govern ourselves and a singular future towards which all societies must evolve.It is wrong and it is irresponsible and worst of all, it is boring.Let universality make way for plurality.Perhaps a more interesting age is upon us.Are we brave enough to welcome it? Thank you.

第五篇：李世默TED演讲稿(英文)

Good morning.My name is Eric Li, and I was born here.But no, I wasn’t born there.This was where I was born: Shanghai, at the height of the Cultural Revolution.My grandmother tells me that she heard the sound of gunfire along with my first cries.When I was growing up, I was told a story that explained all I ever needed to know that humanity.It went like this.All human societies develop in linear progression, beginning with primitive society, then slave society, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, and finally, guess where we end up? Communism!Sooner or later, all of humanity, regardless of culture, language, nationality, will arrive at this final stage of political and social development.The entire world’s peoples will be unified in this paradise on earth and live happily ever after.But before we get there, we’re engaged in a struggle between good and evil, the good of socialism against the evil of capitalism, and the good shall triumph.That, of course, was the meta-narrative distilled from the theories of Karl Marx.And the Chinese bought it.We were taught that grand story day in and day out.It became part of us, and we believed in it.The story was a bestseller.About on third of the entire world’s population lived under that meta narrative.Then, the world changed overnight.As for me, disillusioned by the failed religion of my youth, I went to America and became a Berkeley hippie.Now, as I was coming of age, something else happened.As if one big story wasn’t enough, I was told another one.This one was just as grand.It also claims that all human societies develop in a linear progression towards a singular end.This one went as follows.All societies, regardless of culture, be it Christian, Muslim, Confucian, must progress from traditional societies in which groups are the basic units to modern societies in which atomized individuals are the sovereign units, and all these individuals are, by definition, rational, and they all want one thing: the vote.Because they all rational, once given the vote, they produce good government and live happily ever after.Paradise on earth, again.Sooner or later, electoral democracy will be the only political system for all countries and all peoples, with a free market to make them all rich.But before we get there, we’re engaged in a struggle between good and evil.The good belongs to those who are democracies and are charged with a mission of spreading it around the globe, sometimes by force, against the evil of those who do not hold elections.Now.This story also became a bestseller.According to the Freedom House, the number of democracies went from 45 in 1970 to 115 in 2010.In the last 20years, Western elites tirelessly trotted around the globe selling this prospectus: multiple parties fight for political power and everyone voting on them is the only path to salvation to the long-suffering developing world.Those who buy the prospectus are destined for success.Those who do not are doomed to fail.But this time, the Chinese didn’t buy it.Fool me once… The rest is history.In just 3p years, China went from one of the poorest agricultural countries in the world to its second-largest economy.Six hundred fifty million people were lifted out of poverty.Eighty percent of the entire world’s poverty alleviation during that period happened in China.In other words, all the new and old democracies put together amounted to a mere fraction of what a single, one-party state did without voting.See, I grew up on this stuff: food stamps.Meat was rationed to a few hundred grams per person per month at one point.Needless to say, I ate my grandmother’s portions.So I asked myself, what’s wrong with this picture? Here I am in my hometown, my business growing leaps and bounds.Entrepreneurs are starting companies every day.Middle class is expanding in speed and scale unprecedented in human history.Yet, according to the grand story, none of this should be happening.So I went and did the only thing I could.I studied it.Yes, China is a one-party state run by the Chinese Communist Party, the Party, and they don’t hold elections.There assumptions are made by the dominant political theories of our time.Such a system is operationally rigid, politically closed, and morally illegitimate.Well, the assumptions are wrong.The opposites are true.Adaptability, meritocracy, and legitimacy are the three defining characteristics of China’s one-party system.Now, most political scientists will tell us that a one-party system is inherently incapable of self-correction.It won’t last long because it cannot adapt.Now here are the facts.In 64 years of running the largest country in the world, the range of the party’s policies has been wider than any other country in recent memory, from radical land collectivization to the Great Leap Forward, then privatization of farmland, then the Cultural Revolution, then Deng Xiaoping’s market reform, then successor Jiang Zemin took the giant political step of opening up party membership to private businesspeople, something unimaginable during Mao’s rule.So the party self-corrects in rather dramatic fashions.Institutionally, new rules get enacted to correct previous dysfunctions.For example, term limits.Political leaders used to retain their positions for life, and they used that to accumulate power and perpetuate their rules.Mao was the father of modern China, yet his prolonged rule led to disastrous mistakes.So the party instituted term limits with mandatory retirement age of 68 to 70.One thing we often hear is political reforms have lagged far behind economic reforms and China is in dire need of political reform.But this claim is a rhetorical trap hidden behind a political bias.See, some have decided a priori what kinds of changes they want to see, and only such changes can be called political reform.The truth is, political reforms have never stopped.Compared with 30 years ago, 20 years, even 10 years ago, every aspect of Chinese society, how the country is governed, from the most local level to the highest center, are unrecognizable today.Now such changes are simply not possible without political reforms of the most fundamental kind.Now I would venture to suggest the Party is the world’s leading expert in political reform.The second assumption is that in a one-party state, power gets concentrated in the hands of the few, and bad governance and corruption follow.Indeed, corruption is a big problem, but let’s first look at the larger context.Now, this maybe be counterintuitive to you.The party happens to be one of the most meritocratic political institutions in the world today.China’s highest ruling body, the Politburo, has 25 members.In the most recent one, only five of them came from a background of privilege, so-called Princelings.The other 20, including the President and the Premier, came from entirely ordinary backgrounds.In the larger central committee of 300 or more, the percentage of those who were born into power and wealth was even smaller.The vast majority of senior Chinese leaders worked and competed their way to the top.Compare that with the ruling elites in both developed and developing countries, I think you’ll find the Party being near the top in upward mobility.The question then is, how could that be possible in a system run by one party? New we come to a powerful political institution, little-known to Westerners: the Party’s Organization Department.The Department functions like a giant human resource engine that would be the envy of even some of the most successful corporations.It operates a rotation pyramid made up of there components: civil service, state-owned enterprises, and social organizations like a university or a community program.The form separate yet integrated career paths for Chinese officials.They recruit college grads into entry-level positions in all three tracks, and they start from the bottom, called Keyuan Then they could get promoted through four increasingly elite ranks: fuke, ke, fuchu, and chu.Now these are not moves from karate kids, okay? It’s serious business.The range of positions is wide, from running health care in a village to foreign investment in a city district to manager in a company.Once a year, the department reviews their performance.They interview their superiors, their peers, their subordinates.They vet their personal conduct.They conduct public opinion surveys.Then they promote the winners.Throughout their careers, these cadres can move through and out of all three tracks.Over time, the food ones move beyond the four base levels to the fuju and ju, levels.There, they enter high, officialdom.By that point, a typical assignment will be to manage a district with population in the millions or a company with hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue.Just to show you how competitive the system is, in 2012, there were 900000 fuke and ke levels, 600000 fuchu and chu levels, and only 40000 fuju and ju levels.After the ju levels, the best few move further up several more ranks, and eventually make it to the Central Committee.The process takes two to three decades.Does patronage play a role? Yes of course.But merit remains the fundamental driver.In essence, the Organization Department runs a modernizes version of China’s centuries-old mandarin system.China’s new President Xi Jinping is son of a former leader, which is very unusual, first of his kind to make the top job.Even for him, the career took 30 years.He started as a village manager, and by the time he entered the Politburo, he had managed areas with total population of 150 million people and combined GDPs of 1.5 trillion U.S.dollars.Now, please don’t get me wrong, okay? This is not a putdown of anyone.It’s just a statement of fact.George W.Bush, remember him? This is not a putdown.Before becoming Governor of Texas, or Barack Obama before running for President, could not make even a small county manager in China’s system.Winston Churchill once said that democracy is a terrible system except for all the rest.Well, apparently he hadn’t heard of the Organization Department.Now, Westerners always assume that multi-party election with universal suffrage is the only source of political legitimacy.I was asked once, “The Party wasn’t voted in by election.Where is the source of Legitimacy?” I said, “How about competency?”: We all know the facts.In 1949, when the Party took power, China was mired in civil wars, dismembered by foreign aggression, average life expectancy at that time, 42 years old.Today, it’s the second largest economy in the world, an industrial powerhouse, and its people live in increasing prosperity.Pew Research polls Chinese public attitudes, and here are the numbers in recent years.Satisfaction with the direction of the country: 85 percent.Those who think they’re better off than five years ago, 70%.Those who expects the future to be better, a whopping 82 percent.Financial Times polls global youth attitudes and these numbers, brand new, just came from last week.Ninety-three-percent of China’s GenerationY are optimistic about their country’s future.Now, if this is not legitimacy, I’m not sure what is.In contrast, most electoral democracies around the world are suffering from dismal performance.I don’t need to elaborate for this audience how dysfunctional it is from Washington to European capitals.With a few exceptions, the vast number of developing countries that have adopted electoral regimes are still suffering from poverty and civil strife.Governments get elected, and then they fall below 50 percent approval in a few months and stay there and get worse until the next election.Democracy is becoming a perpetual cycle of elect and regret.At this rate, I’m afraid it is democracy, not China’s one-party system, that is in danger of losing legitimacy.Now, I don’t want to create the misimpression that China’s hunky-dory on the way to some kind of superpowerdom.The country faces enormous challenges.Social and economic problems that come with wrenching change like this are mine-boggling.Pollution is one.Food safety.Population issues.On the political front, the worst problem is corruption.Corruption is widespread and undermines the system and its moral legitimacy.But most analysts mis-diagnose the disease.They say that corruption is the result of the one-party system, and therefore, in order to cure it, you have to do away with the entire system.But a more careful look would tell us otherwise.Transparency International ranks China between 70 and 80 in recent years among 170 countries, and it’s been moving up.India, the largest democracy in the world, 94 and dropping.For the hundred or so countries that are ranked below China, more than half of them are electoral democracies.So if election is the panacea for corruption, how come these countries can’t fix it? Now, I’m a venture capitalist.I make bets.It wouldn’t be fair to end this talk without putting myself on the line and making some predictions.So here they are.In the next 10 years, China will surpass the U.S.and become the largest economy in the world.Income per capital will be near the top of all developing countries.Corruption will be curbed, but not eliminated, and China will move up 10 to 20 notches to above 60 in T.I.ranking.Economic reform will accelerate, political reform will continue, and the one-party system will hold firm.We live in the dusk of an era.Meta-narratives that make universal claims failed us in the 20th century and are failing us in the 21st.Meta-narrative is the cancer that is killing democracy from the inside.Now, I want to clarify something.I’m not here to make an indictment of democracy.On the contrary, I think democracy contributed to the rise of the West and the creation of the modern world.It is the universal claim that many Western elites are making about their political system, the hubris, that is at the heart of the West’s current ills.If they would spend just a little less time on trying to force their way onto others, and a little bit more on political reform at home, they might give their democracy a better chance.China’s political model will never supplant electoral democracy, because unlike the latter, it doesn’t pretend to be universal.It cannot be exported.But that is the point precisely.The significance of China’s example is not that it provides and alternative but the demonstration that alternatives exist.Let us draw to a close this era of meta-narratives.Communism and democracy may both be laudable ideals, but the era of their dogmatic universalism is over.Let us stop telling people and our children there’s only one way to govern ourselves and a singular future towards which all societies must evolve.It is wrong.It is irresponsible.And worst of all, it is boring.Let universality make way for plurality.Perhaps a more interesting age is upon us.Are we brave enough to welcome it?