下文是牛津大學榮休教授 Stein Ringen 所寫，觀點清晰易讀，我隨手把它中譯，希望方便中文讀者。
最令我感興趣的是，他指出古希臘民主只持續了250年。聯想到美國建國至今 238年，不能不令人憂慮。250年的timeline 也令我想到中國沒有一個朝代超過三百年。
同時，堂堂牛津學者並沒有替大英帝國日薄西山圓說。他應該懂得"識時務為俊傑"，走"愛國學者"、"民主人士"馮友蘭和郭沬若之流的道路，一味向當權派歌功頌德，謀取一官半職。老百姓是死是活，管他娘。
此外，值得我們思考的是，民主政治不是繁榮昌盛的同義詞。
我問過一位印度學者朋友: 印度採行民主政治，為什麼印度依然一窮二白呢？
他說: 就是因為民主嘛。(眾笑)
然後，他嚴肅地解釋: 人口過多，資源不足，議會爭執多。
我要求補充: 歷史悠久，傳統和宗教包袱重，人民思維框框多。這是我二度訪問土耳其、以及在香港、中國生活觀察的結果。
我相信以下的問題也值得我們思考、討論:
今天大陸的"配給民主" 、"限量民主"是不是執政者的正途？
為什麼大陸的"配給民主"、"限量民主"在短時間內造出了經濟奇跡呢？
只要有飯給老百姓吃，便可以千秋萬載的掌權獨裁？
民主有沒有放諸四海皆準的定義？
若是把西方民主人性化，英美民主是處於衰老期間。怎樣使英美民主返老還童、長生不老呢？
民主政治的確問題重重，但是我想起邱吉爾名言: "民主政治可能是最要不得的政制，可是我找不到比它更好的。"
Is American democracy headed to extinction?
美國民主在衰敗中？
By Stein Ringen, Published: March 28, 2014. The Washington Post.
Source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-american-democracy-headed-to-extinction/2014/03/28/70e2c7f4-b69f-11e3-8cc3-d4bf596577eb_story.html
Stein Ringen is an emeritus professor at Oxford University and the author of “Nation of Devils: Democratic Leadership and the Problem of Obedience.”
Behind dysfunctional government, is democracy itself in decay?
政府一事無成，是不是意味著民主政治本身的衰敗？
It took only 250 years for democracy to disintegrate in ancient Athens. A wholly new form of government was invented there in which the people ruled themselves. That constitution proved marvelously effective. Athens grew in wealth and capacity, saw off the Persian challenge, established itself as the leading power in the known world and produced treasures of architecture, philosophy and art that bedazzle to this day. But when privilege, corruption and mismanagement took hold, the lights went out.
二千年前，古希臘發明了嶄新的政府形式，人民自我治理，草擬了切實可行的憲法，導致希臘人的財富和力量迅速增長，古希臘成為西方強國，其建築、哲學和藝術到了今天仍然是珍貴的文化遺產。可是，等到特權、貪污、枉法、舞弊變成不可收拾的燎原野火，整個國家便一蹶不振。古希臘的民主政制只實行了250年便垮下來。
It would be 2,000 years before democracy was reinvented in the U.S. Constitution, now as representative democracy. Again, government by popular consent proved ingenious. The United States grew into the world’s leading power — economically, culturally and militarily. In Europe, democracies overtook authoritarian monarchies and fascist and communist dictatorships. In recent decades, democracy’s spread has made the remaining autocracies a minority.
二千年後，民主政制在美國憲法中獲得了新生，成立了代議制民主政體，再次証明，深得人心的政府可以靈活運行，使美國在經濟、文化、軍事上成為傲視世界的超級大國。
The second democratic experiment is approaching 250 years. It has been as successful as the first. But the lesson from Athens is that success does not breed success. Democracy is not the default. It is a form of government that must be created with determination and that will disintegrate unless nurtured. In the United States and Britain, democracy is disintegrating when it should be nurtured by leadership. If the lights go out in the model democracies, they will not stay on elsewhere.
今天，民主政治在美國實行的第二次試點快要達到250歲了。雖然事實証明第二次試點跟第一次同樣成功，不過，雅典的經驗啟廸了我們，成功并非世代相傳，源遠長流。問題的徵結并非來自民主本身。關鍵是，民主一方面需有破釜沉舟的決心來建立和實施，另一方面也需要細心經營呵護，否則便隨著歲月增長，日益衰落。今天，英美民主便是因為缺乏領袖們的呵護，在日衰月落中。如果英美的民主模範日薄西山，我們也不必指望民主會在別的地方繁榮昌盛了。
It’s not enough for governments to simply be democratic; they must deliver or decay. In Britain, government is increasingly ineffectual. The constitutional scholar Anthony King has described it as declining from “order” to “mess” in less than 30 years. During 10 years of New Labor rule, that proposition was tested and confirmed. In 1997 a new government was voted in with a mandate and determination to turn the tide on Thatcherite inequality. It was given all the parliamentary power a democratic government could dream of and benefited from 10 years of steady economic growth. But a strong government was defeated by a weak system of governance. It delivered nothing of what it intended and left Britain more unequal than where the previous regime had left off.
我們不能天真的認為，只須把民主政府建立起來，便可以一了百了。政府必須言而有信、言出必行，做出成績來。不然，政府便每下愈況。英國政府的效能衰退是最好的例証，英憲學者 Anthony King 把該現象形容為在不足30年之內由"井然有序" 墮落到"一塌糊塗"。 綜觀工黨過去當政十年的結果，學者的說法合情合理。1997年，英國人民投票讓工黨執政， 給予工黨史無前例的國會權力， 指望它把保守黨歧視勞工的政策改善過來。十年來穩健的經濟成長對工黨也應該是有利條件。可是，軟弱的領導拖垮了強大的政府，工黨並沒有給英國人民帶來什麼預期的好處，反而促使前任政府遺留下來的貧富懸殊加深加劇。
The next government, a center-right coalition, has proved itself equally unable. It was supposed to repair damage from the economic crisis but has responded with inaction on the causes of crisis, in a monopolistic financial-services sector, and with a brand of austerity that protects the privileged at the expense of the poor. Again, what has transpired is inability rather than ill will. Both these governments came up against concentrations of economic power that have become politically unmanageable.
下一任的政府由工黨和保守黨聯合組成，政策中間偏右，可是政績依然不值一提。人民期待新政府修復經濟危機造出的破壞，可是政府並沒有正本清源，逕直修理危機的成因，向財經壟斷企業開刀; 政府的節流施政反而導致富者愈富、窮者愈窮。關鍵原因是政府的無能，是不能也，非不為也。当时英国富豪操纵了全国經济，連工党和保守党二任政府也束手无策。
Meanwhile, the health of the U.S. system is even worse than it looks. The three branches of government are designed to deliver through checks and balances. But balance has become gridlock , and the United States is not getting the governance it needs. Here, the link between inequality and inability is on sharp display. Power has been sucked out of the constitutional system and usurped by actors such as PACs, think tanks, media and lobbying organizations.
美國制度的問題比表面上看來更為嚴重。政府的行政、立法、司法部門本來應該互相制衡，可是制衡的結果是行不得也哥哥，人民沒有從政府方面獲得好處。我們清楚看到，貧富懸殊和政府無能是息息相關的。美國憲制的權力被政治行動組合、智庫、媒體、遊說組織一一吸走了。
In the age of mega-expensive politics, candidates depend on sponsors to fund permanent campaigns. When money is allowed to transgress from markets, where it belongs, to politics, where it has no business, those who control it gain power to decide who the successful candidates will be — those they wish to fund — and what they can decide once they are in office. Rich supporters get two swings at influencing politics, one as voters and one as donors. Others have only the vote, a power that diminishes as political inflation deflates its value. It is a misunderstanding to think that candidates chase money. It is money that chases candidates.
在金錢至上的政治圈中，候選人倚靠富人資助競選費用。一旦我們容許金錢從市場(金錢應在的場所) 轉移到政界(金錢不應該身處的場所)，富人便有權決定誰人當選，接著左右當選者就職後的決策。富人既可以以投票人身份和捐款人角色去左右政界，同時也削弱了老百姓投票的威力。人們誤以為候選人追逐金錢。其實是金錢追逐候選人。
In Athens, democracy disintegrated when the rich grew super-rich, refused to play by the rules and undermined the established system of government. That is the point that the United States and Britain have reached.
一旦富者愈富、藐視法規和政府， 雅典民主便宣告瓦解。這跟今天英美的情景相同。
Nearly a century ago, when capitalist democracy was in a crisis not unlike the present one, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis warned: “We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” Democracy weathered that storm for two reasons: It is not inequality as such that destroys democracy but the more recent combination of inequality and transgression. Furthermore, democracy was then able to learn from crisis. The New Deal tempered economic free-for-all, primarily through the 1933 Banking Act, and gave the smallfolk new social securities.
一個世紀之前，資本主義民主發生了相似危機。美國最高法院大法官 Louis Brandies 提出警言: " 我們可以有民主， 也可以把財富集中到少數人手上。但是我們不可以兼有魚和熊掌。" 民主政治的致命傷是財富不均和貪汚枉法舞弊叢生。民主平安渡過一百年前的危機，原因是當時出現的貧富懸殊現象不足以摧毀民主。另一方面，民主從那個危機中也上了寶貴的一課。羅斯福的"新政"以為基礎，栓住了財經界的脫韁野馬，也替老百姓帶來前所未有的福利。
The lesson from Athens is that success breeds complacency. People, notably those in privilege, stopped caring and democracy was neglected. Six years after the global economic crisis, the signs from the model democracies are that those in privilege are unable to care and that our systems are unable to learn. The crisis started in out-of-control financial services industries in the United States and Britain, but control has not been reasserted. Economic inequality has followed through to political inequality, and democratic government is bereft of power and capacity. Brandeis was not wrong; he was ahead of his time.
我們從雅典民主盛衰史學得的課題是: 成功滋生貪逸。人們 (尤其是特權階級) 不再理會民生，不再呵護茁長民主。全球經濟危機發生六年後的今天，我們看到英美模範民主政體出現了同樣的症候: 既得利益者漠視窮人，我們的制度失去了虛心學習的能力。六年前的經濟危機起因於英美金融行業為所欲為，如脫韁野馬; 六年後，我們依然看不到實質上的改善。貧富不均導致政治上的不平等，民主政府跟著也變成空殼。Brandeis 大法官的至理警言確實是高瞻遠矚。
