民主未必西方

我曾听到一位欧洲高级官员说，民主的问题就在于担任“啦啦队长”的是小布什(George W. Bush)。他说到点子上了。当时，伊拉克刚刚陷入血腥的混乱状态。鉴于传教士头头是时任美国总统小布什，兜售民主相当艰难。

自那以来，西方的价值观已渐渐失势。先是西方在伊拉克战争过后认识到，依靠巡航导弹把价值观强加给别人并没那么容易。接着，新保守主义者和自由国际主义者也逐渐明白，这不仅仅是投票箱的问题。

还有法治、独立司法和健全的机构等小事。所有这些都必须契合当地的文化环境。从阿富汗得到的教训是，西方缺乏重建国家的欲望。

全球实力对比的转换比所有人想象的都快得多。当美国政府感到自己的霸权地位很牢靠时，美国总统总是更容易站到布道坛上。而美国实力的衰落、中国崛起的速度、以及石油资源丰富的俄罗斯的威权统治，已打消了一切残留的传教热情。

美国和欧洲的政客们仍在宣扬自由和民主的优点，但说教的声音已低了许多。欧洲中左翼人士常常给民主价值观蒙上西方帝国主义的色彩。在这种奇怪的扭曲中，宣扬人权总有那么一种压迫的意味。

哈马斯赢得巴勒斯坦选举，已促使自诩的外交政策现实主义者发出警告：许愿需谨慎。只要结果正确，选举就没问题。而中东地区很可能会得到错误的结果。

不管怎样，西方总会与专制政权达成地缘政治交易和利润丰厚的贸易协议。在这个现实政治的新时代，对于能源巨头英国石油(BP)投入弗拉基米尔•普京(Vladimir Putin)领导的俄罗斯的怀抱，戴维•卡梅伦(David Cameron)领导的英国政府予以了盛赞。欧盟(EU)也为乌兹别克斯坦总统伊斯兰•卡里莫夫(Islam Karimov)等专制统治者铺上了红地毯。

一些发生在很久以前的事件，不过是冷战后对民主趋势不可阻挡的自以为是的乏味预测。曾经幻想世界上将到处都是光芒四射的民主国家的学者们，已转而追捧其它潮流。如今，他们看到了自信的国家资本主义新模式的挑战。至少，你会听到这些专家们说，独裁统治者解决了问题。

民主也有所退缩。追踪政治多元化前景的华盛顿智库Freedom House估计，2010年，全球自由遭遇了“连续第五年衰落”。

可以纳入“自由”范畴的国家数量从89个降到87个，而选举型民主国家的数量降至115个，较2005年少了8个。就算不认可Freedom House的精密计算，你也不得不承认独裁者占据了上风。

5年前，布什承诺要在中东进行民主变革。他在第二个总统任期就职演讲中提出的抱负，言犹在耳就遭到了遗弃。人们很快就达成共识，允许阿拉伯世界表达自己的意见，可能会壮大哈马斯等极端主义者的势力。最好是退回到安逸的冷战姿态，拉拢友好的专制统治者。埃及的胡斯尼•穆巴拉克(Hosni Mubarak)又可以睡上安稳觉了。

但问题总会存在。人们非常喜欢民主。正在崛起的国家可能会谴责美帝国主义和欧洲的干预，憎恨西方与生俱来的优越感。但自由、法治和人性尊严的吸引力远远超出了西方。

我们在突尼斯就看到了这一点。终结了扎因•阿比丁•本•阿里(Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali)长达23年统治的起义，暴露了西方政府始终清楚、但选择了遗忘的事情：就连最貌似可靠的独裁者，在民众的不满情绪面前都很脆弱。

几乎直到本•阿里被迫逃离突尼斯的那一刻，富裕的民主国家还一直站在与普通民众对立的“稳定”一方。前殖民宗主国法国表现得尤为愤世嫉俗。但只要政权是“亲西方的”，几乎每个人都选择了视而不见。

我们不可能预见到这对中东其它国家的影响。有人认为，本•阿里被推翻，点燃了一条缓慢燃烧的导火索，堪比1980年波兰格但斯克船厂团结工会的诞生。也有人认为，其它专制政体（最常提到的是埃及）被推翻的时间可能会提前许多。无论如何，很明显，年轻人明显增多、经济陷入困境和民众的挫折感，正在重新点燃民主的余烬。

美国和欧洲有必要三思。几年前，一位美国国务卿在开罗提到，美国实施了数十年的支持专制统治者的中东政策显然已经失败。这种政策还埋下了暴力极端主义的种子，为了权宜之计而牺牲了长期稳定。康多莉扎·赖斯(Condoleezza Rice)说的没错。但不幸的是，她是为布什效力。

突尼斯起义提醒着我们不要忘记政治思想的力量，以及民主的民众影响力。示威者走上街头，不是为了支持美国或欧洲的价值观，而是要求多元体制赋予的自由和尊严。

当今世界一个引人注目之处在于，到处都是装成民主人士的专制统治者。就连凡是带有西方模式味道的东西都一概瞧不起的政权，也想索要民主选择赋予的合法性。

中国政府的观点比通常表现出来的更为微妙。中国国家主席胡锦涛在访美期间承认，中国必须在人权问题上做得更好。在俄罗斯，就连普京也感到有必要在口头上支持法治。

所有这些不是要去支持布什式的“圣战”。但西方应该对普世价值观表现出更大的信心。以其本来面目看待世界是一回事，发现自己与本•阿里之流是一类人是另一回事儿。历史永远不会终结。不过，它依然站在民主这一边。

History is on the side of democracy

I once heard a senior European official remark that the trouble with democracy was that George W. Bush was its cheerleader. He had a point. Iraq had recently descended into bloody chaos. As long as the then US president was proselytiser-in-chief, democracy was a pretty tough sell.

Western values have been out of fashion ever since. First came the post-Iraq realisation that it is not that easy to impose them at the point of a cruise missile. Then it dawned on neoconservatives and liberal internationalists that there is more to all this than a ballot box.

There are small matters such as the rule of law, an independent judiciary and robust institutions. All these have to fit the cultural circumstances. The lesson from Afghanistan is that the west lacks the stomach for nation-building.

The balance of global power has shifted much faster than anyone imagined. It was always going to be easier for a US president to climb into the pulpit when Washington felt secure in its hegemony. Declining US power, the speed of China’s rise and authoritarian rule in oil-rich Russia have tempered any residual missionary enthusiasm.

American and European politicians still preach the virtues of freedom and democracy, but the sermons are delivered sotto voce. The European centre-left often paints democratic values in the colours of western imperialism. In this curious contortion, promoting human rights is somehow an act of oppression.

The electoral success of the Palestinian Hamas movement has seen self-professed foreign policy realists caution that we must be careful what we wish for. Elections are fine as long as they produce the right answer. The Middle East may well produce the wrong one.

In any event, there are geopolitical bargains and lucrative trade deals to be struck with repressive regimes. In the new age of realpolitik, David Cameron’s British government loudly applauds as the energy giant BP throws itself into the arms of Vladimir Putin’s Russia. The European Union rolls out the red carpet for despots such as Uzbek president Islam Karimov.

Events long ago exposed as vapid lofty post-cold war predictions of the irresistible march of democracy. The scholars who once imagined a world of shiny democracies have climbed on to other bandwagons. Now they see a challenge from a new, self-confident model of state capitalism. At least, you hear these pundits say, the autocrats get things done.

Democracy has also been in retreat on the ground. Freedom House, the Washington-based think-tank that tracks the fortunes of political pluralism, calculates that global freedom suffered a “fifth consecutive year of decline in 2010”.

The number of countries worthy of being designated “free” fell from 89 to 87, and the number of electoral democracies dropped to 115 – eight fewer than in 2005. You do not have to agree with Freedom House’s precise methodology to agree that the autocrats have had the upper hand.

Five years ago Mr Bush promised a democratic transformation in the Middle East. The ambition of his second inaugural address was abandoned almost as it was spoken. Offering a voice to the Arab street, it was soon agreed, risked empowering extremists such as Hamas. Better to slip back into the comfortable cold war posture of cuddling up to friendly tyrants. Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak could sleep easily again.

There was always, though, a snag. People quite like democracy. Rising nations may decry US imperialism and European meddling and resent the west’s innate sense of its own superiority. But freedom, the rule of law and human dignity have an appeal well beyond the west.

That is what we have seen in Tunisia. The uprising that put an end to the 23-year rule of Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali exposed what western governments always knew, but preferred to forget. Even the most seemingly secure autocrats are vulnerable to popular discontent.

Almost until the moment Mr Ben Ali was forced to flee Tunis, the rich democracies took the side of “stability” against the street. France, the former colonial power, showed particular cynicism. But almost everyone turned a blind eye as long as the regime was “pro-western”.

It is impossible to predict the effects elsewhere in the Middle East. Some see the overthrow of Mr Ben Ali as the spark to a slow-burning fuse comparable with the birth of Poland’s Solidarity movement in the shipyards of Gdansk in 1980. Others suggest that other repressive regimes – Egypt is most often mentioned – could be toppled much sooner. Either way, it is evident that youth bulges, economic hardship and popular frustration are rekindling the embers of democracy.

The US and Europe need to think again. A few years ago a US secretary of state spoke in Cairo of the manifest failure of a decades-old policy of propping up despots in the Middle East. It had planted the seeds of violent extremism and sacrificed long-term stability to expediency. Condoleezza Rice got it right. Unhappily, she worked for Mr Bush.

The Tunisian uprising has been a reminder of the power of political ideas; and of the popular pull of democracy. The protesters did not take to the streets in support of US or European values; they did so to demand the freedom and dignity conferred by pluralist systems.

One of the striking things about today’s world is that it is full of despots pretending to be democrats. Even regimes that disdain anything that smacks of a western model want to claim the legitimacy conferred by democratic choices.

Beijing has a more nuanced view than it often seems. This week saw Hu Jintao, the Chinese president, acknowledge that China had to do better on human rights. In Russia, even Mr Putin feels compelled to pay lip service to the rule of law.

None of this argues for a Bush-like crusade. But the west should show much greater confidence in universal values. It is one thing to treat with the world as it is; another to find yourself on the same team as the likes of Mr Ben Ali. History was never going to end. It remains, though, on the side of democracy.