权威主义还是精英民主：新加坡政治发展研究

【作者】 梅少粉；

【导师】 赵虎吉；

【作者基本信息】 中共中央党校 ， 政治学， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 新加坡由于其经济发展速度和政治廉洁程度而备受世界关注，发展的原因也备受争议。它1965年实现独立，到现在已经成为东南亚地区现代化和工业化程度最高的国家。当下，学术界对新加坡的研究已经超出了经济发展的范畴，转向了对经济发展的原因探究和政治发展模式的讨论。研究过程中，一些学者认定新加坡是权威主义国家，它的发展模式、发展理念、发展速度都是受权威主义的影响。他们给出的理由是新加坡的一党制、李光耀的个人巨大作用以及根深蒂固的儒家传统文化等。最重要的是，他们认为，既然新加坡的模式不符合西方的民主标准，它当然应被划归到权威主义的行列。同时，学界也存在另一种不同的主张，认为新加坡属于民主政治，这种民主是有别于西方的，它是一党长期执政，但不是一党制；它受李光耀巨大个人作用的影响，但他不是专断的个人绝对权威，而是精英人物的代表，受制度和法律的约束；新加坡经济的发展、多元动态治理的形成、中等收入群体的增多都使得民众参与政治的积极性逐渐提高，参与的途径逐渐增多，民主性增强。同时，传统儒家文化中的共同体主义观念也保证了新加坡的自由不是无限的自由，新加坡的竞争不是无限的竞争，而是一种“有限竞争”、“有限民主”，还有人称之为“托管式民主”。本论文应用历史制度主义的方法论对新加坡的政治发展模式进行了考察，引入了四个考察变量，即：外部压力、内部冲突、观念引导和精英作用。我认为任何一个国家政治发展模式或是道路的选择从本质上讲是一个制度的形成及变迁过程，在这一过程中决定其发展走向民主或非民主的是外部环境的压力、内部的冲突、新的理念引进和精英的引导四个方面。新加坡的发展有自身的特殊性，它既不是传统意义上的权威主义国家，也不是完全符合西方路径的民主国家。新加坡的政治发展模式是和自身地理位置、历史传统、民族文化等因素紧密结合在一起的，它受到英国殖民统治和被迫脱离马来西亚联邦的外部压力、经济发展转型的内部动力、西方法治理念和东方仁治传统相互融合下的观念的引导以及人民行动党为代表的精英人物的推动四个方面因素的交互影响，走向了精英民主政治的道路。我认为新加坡不是权威主义国家，而是精英民主国家。原因在于：第一，学术界对民主与非民主的划分中，将绝对极权主义、极权主义和权威主义划在了非民主国家的行列，而把直接民主、代议制民主和有限民主划分在了民主国家行列，这也是政治学理论中得到普遍赞同的划分方法。而新加坡是有限民主，既存在权力自上而下的运行，也存在自下而上的运行，且民众参与政治的渠道除了政党还有别的，所以不能划分到权威主义国家行列。第二，在新加坡，精英和大众之间的关系是开放的、动态的、流动的。既有精英内部的流动，即精英与精英之间的流动，也有精英的外部流动，即精英与大众之间的流动。民众通过合理的途径有可能转变为精英，进入精英群体。精英如果不能保持在本领域的优势地位与作用，将会被淘汰出精英群体，成为大众中的一员。精英与大众之间存在循环流动。第三，在新加坡，精英与大众之间是一种利益代表关系，精英代表大众利益进行决策的制定和执行，而民众的利益诉求可以得到及时有效的反馈与回应。而实行权威主义的国家，精英和大众之间往往是一种利益代替关系，精英完全代替了民众的利益和表达诉求的权利。总之，绝对不能以西方判定民主非民主的标准来衡量新加坡的政治发展，而要从新加坡特殊的发展历史、先进——落后的二元发展环境以及强国家——强社会的国内二元结构等实际情况出发，这样做出的判断才是科学合理，才是有说服力的。综合分析，新加坡的政治发展属于精英民主政治，学术界所讲的“有限民主”和“托管式民主”从本质上讲都是精英民主政治，即民众通过民主的方式选出最优秀的精英进行统治。本论文首先对权威主义和精英民主进行了比较分析，二者有着很多的相同和相似之处，但也有着明显的区别，如民主与非民主的本质区别、精英流动性与封闭性的区别、精英与大众利益代表和利益代替的区别等，最大的区别在于有权威的精英人物发挥作用有没有一种民主制度的制约、监督和保障。接着以典型的权威主义国家韩国（1960-1979年）为例进行了案例分析，指出了权威主义向精英民主政治转型的必然性。其次，通过应用历史制度主义的方法论，考察了新加坡政治发展过程中之所以形成自身发展模式的四个方面因素，即：被迫脱离马来西亚联邦和英国撤军带来的外部压力；政治经济发展诉求与本身地小人少、自然资源的极度匮乏之间的冲突；东西方文化冲突与融合下形成的鱼尾狮智慧的引导；各行各业精英人物的强力推动。在这四个变量的相互作用下，新加坡形成了适合自己的精英民主政治结构。再次，以历史制度主义为视角，考察了新加坡的精英民主政治结构，主要是从制度基础、法治基础、政治行为主体、信仰与价值观四个方面展开。其中，制度基础主要考察了新加坡的国会和政党制度；法制基础主要侧重论述新加坡法律体系的形成；政治行为主体主要包括政党和其他社会组织等；信仰与价值观方面主要是从新加坡的精英教育着眼进行的考察。最后，对新加坡的精英民主政治进行了评价和展望。我认为，新加坡的精英民主政治是具有可持续性的，因为它已经形成了一个好的制度，形成了合适的文化土壤，培养了新生代的领导人及越来越多理性的公民。同时，在后李光耀时代，论文分别考察了吴作栋和李显龙时期的新加坡政治，认为根据历史制度主义的路径依赖理论，这种既定的精英民主政治发展模式也不会发生本质性的改变。新加坡的精英民主政治固然有自身的特殊性，但它以自身的成功向世界表明，民主政治不仅仅有西方国家一种模式，西方的民主标准也不是放之四海而皆准的，在受儒家文化影响的地区，既充分反映和代表了绝大多数人的利益诉求，又形成了完善的制约和纠错机制，精英民主政治发挥了最大的效能，值得进一步关注。通过理论上的分析比较和对新加坡政治发展模式成因、结构的考察，可以判定新加坡的政治发展属于精英民主，而不是权威主义。论文的结论意在探讨一种不同于西方标准的民主模式，即立足于实现并实际实现了反映大多数人的意愿，在大多数人的意愿得不到满足时有一种纠错机制来保障大多数人的利益。这才是民主政治的本质。更多还原

【Abstract】 Singapore’s integrity and economic development process are of great attentionand the developing reasons are deeply in controversy. Singapore becameindependence in1965and then achieved modernization after thirty years. She finallybecomes the most advanced and industrialized country in Southeast Asia. Politiciansand academics tend to talk about the reasons that hidden deeply in economicdevelopment and the unique developing mode. In the research process, some scholarshave concluded that Singapore is an authoritarian country and its developing model,ideas and developing speed are influenced by authoritarianism. The reasons they giveare that Singapore owns one-party system, Lee Kuan Yew’s personal huge role, anddeep-rooted Confucian traditional culture. They believe that since Singapore’s modeldoes not conform to the standards of western democracy, and of course it should beclassified to authoritarianism. At the same time, there is a different voice, whichmeans that Singapore belongs to a democratic country. This kind of democracy isdifferent from the west. Singapore has a long-term ruling party, but not a one-partystate. She is affected by Lee Kuan Yew huge personal role. He is not an arbitraryleader but the representative of the elite. Singapore’s economic development, theformation of multiple dynamic governance and the increase in the number ofmiddle-income groups make people participate in political activities. At the same time,the traditional Confucian culture, exp. the communitarianism, also ensures thatfreedom is not unlimited in Singapore. Singapore’s competition is not unlimited, but a"limited competition","limited democracy" or you can call it a "manageddemocracy".This paper applies the methodology of historical institutionalism in Singapore’spolitical development model, and introduces four variables, namely the externalpressure, internal conflict, ideas guiding and elite’s role. I think any country’s politicaldevelopment model or the choice of path in essence is the process of the formationand change of a system. The key factors of its development towards authoritariandemocracy are the pressures coming from the external environment, internal conflicts,and new concept introduced and elite. The development of Singapore has its ownparticularity, which is neither a traditional authoritarian country nor a democraticcountry in line with the path of western democracies. Singapore’s politicaldevelopment model integrates closely with its geographical location, historical tradition and national culture. It was influenced under the pressure of the Britishcolonial rule and the urge to be forced out of the federation of Malaysia, the innerpower in transformation of economic development, the concept of rule of law fromwest, the east benevolence tradition and the elite such as People’s Action Party. I thinkthat Singapore is not an authoritarian country but an elite democratic one. Firstly, inacademics, it usually put absolutely totalitarianism, totalitarian and authoritarian inthe circle of undemocratic countries and put direct democracy and representativedemocracy and limited democracy in democratic nations while dividing thedemocracy and un-democracy. This is also a widespread way of dividing in politics.While Singapore owns limited democracy, the operation of the power from top tobottom and from the bottom up, in addition the people have other ways toparticipating in politics besides the party channel, so Singapore can’t be divided intothe authoritarian country. Secondly, in Singapore, the relationship between the eliteand the public is open and dynamic. There are elite internal flow, the external flow ofelite, which means flow between the elite and the public. People could become elitethrough reasonable ways. Thirdly, in Singapore, the relationship between elite andmass is a kind of interests. The elites represent the interests of the public to makedecisions so the interests of the public can be timely and effectively feedback andresponse. And in authoritarian countries, the relationship between elite and the publicis often a interest instead of the other. The elites completely take the place of thepublic interest and their appeal. Above all, we cannot exam Singapore’s politicaldevelopment according to the standards of western democracy. A reasonablejudgment should consider the unique development history of Singapore, the advanced-backward binary development environment and strong country-strong domestic dualstructure of social reality. By comprehensive analysis Singapore belongs to the elitedemocracy. The "limited democracy" and "managed democracy" in essence bothbelong to elite democracy, namely by a democratic way people pick out the best eliteto rule.This paper first compares the authoritarianism and elite democracy. There are a lotof similarities between each other, but also have the obvious differences, such as theessential difference between democracy and un-democracy, the difference betweenthe elite mobility and closed elite, the difference between the elite and public interestsin representatives and replace. The biggest difference lies in whether the authoritativeelites are under a democratic system’s restriction, supervision and protection. Then the paper takes a typical authoritarian country, South Korea (1960-1979) as anexample to point out the inevitability of transformation from democratic politicalauthoritarianism to elite. Secondly, by using the methodology of historicalinstitutionalism, the paper examines the Singapore’s four factors in the process ofpolitical development. Under the interaction of these four variables, Singapore hasformed a democratic political structure, which suits its own reality. Then, in theperspective of historical institutionalism, this paper investigates the Singapore’sdemocratic political structure, mainly the system, and the rule of law, politicalbehavior body, beliefs and values. Among them, the system mainly examines theSingapore congress and the party system, the legal system mainly focuses on theformation of the Singapore legal system, the political behavior body mainly includespolitical parties and other social organizations, and the beliefs and values refer to theelite education. Finally, the paper evaluates Singapore’s elite democracy and thenmakes some predictions. I think that Singapore’s elite democracy is sustainable,because it has already formed a good system, formed appropriate cultural soil andcultivated the new generation of leaders and citizens of more and more rational. At thesame time, in the post-Lee Kuan yew era, namely the Goh Chok Tong and Lee HsienLoong, Singapore’s elite democracy will not be fundamentally changed according tothe path dependence theory of historical institutionalism. Singapore’s elite democracyhas its own particularity, but it could also show the world her success that democracyis not only a pattern and the standard of western democracy is not a universal standard.Singapore’s elite democracy affected by the Confucian culture could both fully reflectand represent the interests of the overwhelming majority of people and form a perfectrestriction and error correction mechanism. Singapore’s elite democracy deservesfurther attention.Through the analysis on the theory and the mode of Singapore’s politicaldevelopment, including its political structure and the causes, I can conclude that thepolitical development of Singapore is elite democracy, rather than authoritarian. Theconclusion of this thesis is intended to explore a different model of democracy fromwestern standard. It means that democracy should base on the realization of thewishes of the majority, and that when it doesn’t meet the majority’s will, we canresort to an error correction mechanism to safeguard the interests of the majority. Thisis the essence of democracy.更多还原