2016年12月7日 星期三

特朗普當選年度風雲人物 Francis Fukuyama on Donald Trump

(德國之聲中文網昂)去年,這位億萬富翁排在榜單的第三位,他前面還有恐怖主義組織"伊斯蘭國"的首領、現任"伊斯蘭國"的"哈里發"阿布·貝克爾·巴格達迪(第二位),以及排在第一的德國總理默克爾--她是近30年來《時代周刊》年度風雲人物中的首位女性。
在上次未能當選年度風雲人物時,特朗普還對榜單進行了抱怨。他在推特上寫道,"我告訴過你們,《時代周刊》永遠都不會選我當年度風雲人物的,儘管我是大熱門"。他還寫道,《時代周刊》編輯部沒有選他,反而選了那個"毀了德國"的女政客。
登上今年榜單的,除了特朗普外還有美國體操運動員西蒙·拜爾斯、歌手碧昂斯以及希拉里·克林頓。在這個榜單上,希拉里也"輸給"特朗普,排在榜單第二位。
在得知當選2016年風雲人物後,特朗普稱這是"一個大榮譽"。
自1927年起,美國《時代周刊》開始評選對當年世界格局產生巨大影響的風雲風物,而這種影響不一定是積極意義上的。曾經當選風雲人物的有些極具聲望,有些則備受爭議。希特勒、曼德拉和英國女王都曾成為年度風雲人物。

王凡/文木(路透社/德新社/美聯社/法新社)

~~~~
研究世界民主問題的著名美國政治思想學者福山在談到川普現象時說,他本人並不喜歡川普,也不會投票給他,但是川普在政壇上的崛起確實也反映出了一些民意。
他說:“唐納德·川普拉低了美國政治的格調,我認為他也缺少文明風度。這在政治上不是件好事。但是我確實認為,他反映了民眾對很多事情在相當程度上的憤怒;不幸的是,那反映了美國的某種社會現實,也就是,很多人感到被忽視了,感到政治系統沒有回應他們的訴求。”
法西斯?美國人骨子裡沒有專制想法
不過,川普也因為發表了那些具有爭議性的言論而被反對他的一些人貼上了“法西斯”的標籤。中共黨媒《人民日報》旗下的《環球時報》在​​一篇評論川普現象的社論中提醒讀者說,墨索里尼和希特勒也是通過人民選舉上台的。
政治學專家弗朗西斯·福山(資料照)政治學專家弗朗西斯·福山(資料照)
福山說:“我認為,這只是反映出對美國社會的某種無知。美國人骨子裡就沒有專制的想法。我覺得,他們想要強有力的領導,但是他們希望這種領導受到法律和基本問責的約束。他們不希望有人讓反對者噤聲,或是對他們使用暴力。從根本上來講,美國的製度是建立在法律之上的。進一步來說,我認為身為商人和談判者的唐納德·川普很可能更願意與對手談判而不是主宰他們。”
福山認為,美國政治中確實存在一些問題,比如精英把持政治、金錢政治以及政府運作上的一些問題,但是川普現象本身並不表明美國的政治體制出現問題或者是危機。
權力制衡
他指出,美國民主不僅有民主選舉,還包括權力衡。
他說:“美國總統和中國領導人不一樣。我們有權力衡的憲政體系。你當選了總統並不意味著你想幹什麼就能幹什麼。總統必須和國會合作,他們必須在憲法框架內行事。總統實際擁有的權力是非常有限的,因此總統的效率實際上取決於他/她與政府其他部門,尤其是司法部門,建立共識的能力。……在中國,共產黨的領袖基本上沒有什麼可以衡他。如果領導人的權力非常大,像習近平一樣,他們就可以做任何他們想做的事情,而人們只能希望有一個好的領導人。我認為,在某種程度上來說這是個更大的危險,因為不受制衡的權力會做很多糟糕的事情,比如侵犯民眾的基本權利,犯下不容易修正的大錯誤。”
既有選票還有法治
此外,福山還強調,在美國的民主體制中,有法治作保障。
他說:“我認為,非常重要的一點是,美國人不是選舉獨裁者,我們選出的總統必須在法治體系下行事,必須遵從法律。事實上,當川普說要殺了恐怖主義的家人或是做一些實際上是違法的事情的時候,包括美國軍方的許多人都表示,他們不會服從這樣的命令,因為那是違法的。他們首先是對法律忠誠,而不是選出的任何一位總統。我認為那​​是美國民主最重要的基礎。”
研究民主與治理的著名學者
弗朗西斯•福山目前是斯坦福大學民主、發展與法治中心的高級研究員。1989年初,福山發表題為《歷史的終結》 (The End of History)的文章並斷言,民主制將“成為全世界最終的政府形式”。在這之後不久,柏林牆倒塌,蘇聯共產黨帝國瓦解,福山聲譽鵲起。
這篇文章在1992年被擴展成專著《歷史的終結及最後之人》(The End of History and the Last Man)。福山在2014年出版了他的新書《政治秩序和政治衰敗》( Political Order and Political Decay),他在新書中強調了治理問題。
2015年4月23日,福山和其他兩名學者受中共中央政治局常委、中紀委書記王岐山的邀請,在中南海與其見面。
川普能贏否?
這位知名政治學者對當下的美國總統選舉也做出了他的預測。福山說,從全國范圍的民調來看,不支持川普的人要比支持他的人多,因此他認為,川普即使拿下共和黨提名,當選總統的可能性也比較低。他說,如果是他來預測大選結果,他認為希拉里·克林頓會當選。
不過,自從川普宣佈出馬競選後,一個又一個的美國政治家和評論家預言他只是曇花一現,而這些預言卻一次又一次地被川普擊破。
~~~~~~

‘End of History’ Author Says Donald Trump Could Signal a Shift From the Liberal World Order

Francis Fukuyama says the U.S.’s role depends on whether Mr. Trump rules like a businessman or a ‘mafia boss’


Francis Fukuyama, the Stanford University professor who famously said Western-style liberal democracy was triumphing in an “End of History” global political evolution, now says Donald Trump’s coming presidency could usher in the collapse of the postwar world order. Here are excerpts from a recent interview:
Q: You have said Donald Trump’s winning the White House is a watershed moment for world order. Why?
A: The bottom line of Trump’s policy is quite consistent: He’s a nationalist, both in terms of economic policy and global political order. He’s not going to buy into the type of cooperative arrangements that have been the underpinning of the liberal world order since the late 1940s.
But the real question that people have to pay attention to is, when he can’t get his way, which I suspect is going to be the case, is he going to escalate to more serious things like protective tariffs or punitive actions against companies that invest overseas?
This is tremendously dangerous because there’s a lot of economic nationalism already out there, and the U.S. has played a role in keeping this under wraps. If the hegemonic power shifts sides to a populist nationalist platform, the impetus towards maintaining that liberal order is potentially going to collapse.
In terms of global political strategy, that same liberal order has been maintained by U.S. alliance relationships, with NATO, Japan, South Korea, and the like. Here again, he’s been really skeptical that these are worth it for us.
This wouldn’t be quite so menacing if you didn’t have Russia and China on the kind of geopolitical roll that they’ve been on for the last five years where are both resentful, they’ve got territorial claims and they’ve been held at bay by the fact that the U.S. has been leading a coalition of like-minded democracies.
Q: Is Mr. Trump’s campaign rhetoric more bluster than reality and could advisers play a moderating role?
A: That’s a question that nobody has any idea what the answer is. There are two aspects to his personality. He’s a businessman, he likes to do deals, he likes to reach agreements with people. If that’s his basic outlook, then when he faces the reality of the limits of America’s ability to act unilaterally, then he may actually end up not too different from the kind of policies we’ve seen over the last generation.
On the other side, he’s got this kind of lunatic side where he is willing to be completely outside the consensus, threatening more like a mafia boss to take revenge on people who’ve disrespected him.
It’s inevitable there’s going to be some really big setback and he’s going to want to do something—when other countries push back or other parts of the U.S. government push back—and that’s going to be the critical moment when we don’t know how he’s going to react. Is he going to fall back to the transactional mode, and just settle for the best deal he can get, or is this more extremist side going to come out? And I just don’t think anyone knows right now.
Q: You say the existing world order is threatened by a Trump presidency. Why?
A. There was a world order, in the sense that there are a lot of formal institutions like all the Bretton Woods institutions and military alliances. Obviously if the world is populated by a lot of populist, nationalist leaders, they inherently don’t believe in international institutions, and so they’re not going to provide any support for those. They are creating an international network where they are lending support to one another.
The formal, structural institutions that we’ve been reliant upon will be weakened. It’ll be replaced by these networks of more like-minded regimes.
Q: In light of that scenario, could the world spiral down into trade and currency wars that led to global conflicts in the past?
A. Yes, this is the more likely one than the political one: Where you don’t like deals that you can negotiate, so you threaten a punitive tariff or you take actions against companies investing abroad and countries retaliate.
China has a lot of sources of leverage over us, beginning with how much of their currency they’ve been willing to buy, and they’ve been buying airplanes from Boeing and turbines from GE, and there’re all sorts of ways that economic relationship could go south very quickly.

張貼留言

網誌存檔