民主投票是績效評估，不是身分動員

 民主投票是績效評估，不是身分動員

@@@

新加坡的选举并不民主，但也并非毫无意义。

在民主国家，

不满情绪通过选举的可能性来表达，

 

而在新加坡，

李光耀和他的继任者把投票作为一种绩效评估，

让当权者了解他们的行动是否有效，

从而使他们有机会根据他们对公众利益的判断来调整他们的政策。

 

Elections in Singapore are not democratic, but they are not without significance. While in democracies discontent expresses itself through the possibility of electoral change, in Singapore 李光耀 and his successors have used voting as a performance evaluation to inform those in power of the efficacy of their actions, thereby giving them the opportunity to adjust their policies depending on their judgment of the public interest.

 

是否有一个替代方案？

一个不同的方法，

更加民主和多元的方法，可能会成功吗？

 

李光耀并不这么认为。

他认为，在新加坡走向独立之初，

它就面临着宗派势力的威胁，

这些势力曾使许多其他后殖民国家四分五裂。

在他看来，

存在严重民族分裂的民主国家有可能屈服于身份政治，

而身份政治往往会加剧宗派主义。[*]

民主制度的功能是使多数人（有不同的定义）通过选举建立政府，

然后在政治观点发生变化时建立另一个政府。

 

但是，

当政治观点--和分裂--是由不可改变的身份定义

而不是由流动的政策差异决定时，

任何这种结果的前景都会随着分裂的程度而下降；

多数派倾向于成为永久性的，

而少数派则试图通过暴力来逃避他们的征服。

 

在李光耀看来，

作为一个不受意识形态束缚的亲密伙伴的务实单位，

政府的运作最为有效，

它重视技术和行政能力，无情地追求卓越。

他的试金石是一种公共服务意识。

 

Was there an alternative? Might a different approach, more democratic and pluralist, have succeeded? 李光耀 did not think so. He believed that at the beginning, as Singapore moved toward independence, it was in danger from the sectarian forces that tore apart many other post-colonial countries. As he saw it, democratic states with significant ethnic divisions run the risk of succumbing to identity politics, which tend to accentuate sectarianism.[*]

A democratic system functions by enabling a majority (variously defined) to create a government through elections, and then to create another government when political opinion shifts. But when political opinions – and divisions – are determined by immutable definitions of identity rather than by fluid policy differences, the prospects for any such outcome decline in proportion to the extent of the division; majorities tend to become permanent, and minorities seek to escape their subjugation through violence. In 李光耀’s view, governance operated most effectively as a pragmatic unit of close associates untethered to ideology, prizing technical and administrative competence and ruthlessly pursuing excellence. The touchstone for him was a sense of public service:

 

政治要求一个人具有这种额外的能力，对人和理想的承诺。

你不只是在做一份工作。

这是一种天职；

与神职不一样。

你必须对人有感情，你必须想改变社会，让生活更美好。

 

Politics demands that extra of a person, a commitment to people and ideals. You are not just doing a job. This is a vocation; not unlike the priesthood. You must feel for people, you must want to change society and make lives better.[162]

 

那么，明天呢？

新加坡未来的关键问题是，

持续的经济和技术进步是否会导致民主和人文的转型。

如果国家的表现不佳

--导致选民在种族认同中寻求保护—

新加坡制度下的选举就有可能变成一党制种族统治的认证。

 

What, then, of tomorrow? The key issue for Singapore’s future is whether continuing economic and technological progress will lead to a democratic and humanistic transition. Should the country’s performance falter – causing voters to seek protection in ethnic identity – elections in the Singaporean system could run the risk of turning into authentications of one-party ethnic rule.