When President Bush declared recently that political openness naturally accompanied economic openness, his counterparts in Beijing and Moscow were not the only ones to object. Liberal and conservative intellectuals, even once ardent supporters, have backed away from the century-old theory that democracy and capitalism, like Paris Hilton and paparazzi, need each other to survive.

當布希總統最近宣稱，政治開放自然伴隨經濟開放而生時，反對他這套論調的，不只他在北京和莫斯科的對手，自由派和保守派知識分子，甚至一度全力支持他的人，都已棄守長達一個世紀的理論，這項理論指民主和資本主義，一如派瑞絲．希爾頓和狗仔，為了存活，彼此需要。

From China, where astounding economic growth persists despite Communist Party rule, to Russia, where President Vladimir V. Putin has squelched opposition, to Venezuela, where dissent is silenced, developments around the world have been tearing jawbreaker-size holes in what has been a remarkably powerful idea, not only in academic circles but also in both Republican and Democratic administrations — that capitalism and democracy are two sides of a coin.

從中國，儘管在共產黨統治下，經濟持續出現驚人的成長；到俄羅斯總統普亭鎮壓反對黨；乃至於委內瑞拉異議被消音，全球發展趨勢，正將一個原本強而有力的概念，也就是資本主義和民主是一體的兩面，撕裂出一個超大的洞，不只在學術界，也在共和民主兩黨政府內。

"People, including myself, still have reasons to think it will eventually happen," Francis Fukuyama, a political economist at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, said of China's evolution to democracy. "But the time frame has to be a lot longer." At least in the next couple of decades, he said, it is likely that "the authoritarian system will keep going and get stronger."

約翰霍普金斯大學高等國際研究學院政治學家法蘭西斯．福山，談起中國的演變時說：「包括我自己在內，仍有人有理由認為這終將發生，但時間架構一定會拖更久。」他指出，至少未來20年內，「獨裁主義將延續下去，而且愈來愈強。」

Fukuyama, perhaps more than anyone else, has been associated with the idea that capitalism and democracy are inextricably linked. In his famous essay, "The End of History," written in 1989 as the Soviet Union was in decline, he declared that all nations would ultimately develop into Western-style liberal democracies.

福山可能比任何其他人更主張，資本主義和民主互相糾結，密不可分。在寫於前蘇聯日走下坡的1989年知名論文《歷史的終結》中，他宣稱，所有國家終將發展出西式自由民主政體。

"There was great hope in the early 1990s," said Michael Mandelbaum, the author of the forthcoming book "Democracy's Good Name: The Rise and Risks of the World's Most Popular Form of Government." The belief was that rising incomes would create a middle class that would agitate for personal liberty and political power. The tipping point seemed to occur when per capita income reached somewhere between $6,000 and $8,000. True, there were exceptions like tiny Singapore with its growing wealth and one-party state, but they were often dismissed as too small or transitional to really put a dent in the theory.

即將出版的新書《民主美名：世界最受歡迎政府形式的崛起與風險》作者孟德邦說：「1990年代初的確充滿希望。」他們的信念是，收入增加將產生一個中產階級，他們將煽動個人自由和政治權力。引爆點似乎在人均所得達到6,000到8,000美元之間時發生。沒錯，是有例外，像小國新加坡，個人財富日增，但仍實施一黨專政，但他們往往因幅員太小或太短暫過渡，而不能在歷史上引起注意。

Yet, as the free market and autocrats gained power in the Caucasus, Central Asia, Latin America and Russia, the initial optimism about democracy's sure-footed march faltered. Some scholars pointed out that the American experience, where democracy and capitalism arose at the same time, was not so much a model for the rest of the world as an anomaly.

但當自由市場和獨裁統治者在高加索、中亞、拉丁美洲和俄羅斯取得政權時，最初對民主政治穩步前進的樂觀看法開始動搖。有些學者指出，美國經驗中民主政治和資本主義同時發展，非但不足為世界其他地方的樣板，反而是個異數。

"In the rest of the world, it took 100, 200, 300 years before they got to where they could manage a democracy," said Bruce R. Scott, an economist at Harvard Business School who is finishing a book titled "Capitalism, Democracy and Development." A big mistake, he said, was assuming that "all you had to have was a constitution and an election and you had a democracy; that was really stupid."

「在世界其他地方，要花100年，200年，甚至300年，才能產生民主政體，」哈佛政經學院經濟學家布魯斯．史考特說，他即將出書，題為《資本主義、民主與發展》。他並指出，最大的繆誤是認定，「只要有一部憲法，舉辦選舉，就有民主，那種看法愚不可及。」

Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate now at Columbia University, agrees that one of the biggest changes since the early 1990s is an appreciation of the complexity and limits of democracy.

目前任教哥大的諾貝爾獎得主史迪格里茲附和說，自1990年代初以來，最大的改變之一是認清民主的複雜和限制。

Fareed Zakaria, a columnist and author of a book on the development of democracy, suggested that some countries — Singapore, Peru and Russia, for example — went through a stage of "illiberal democracy," where there was robust economic growth but few political liberties like a free press, the rule of law and personal liberty until liberal habits and institutions had a chance to develop.

專欄作家札卡里亞也曾著書談民主發展，他指出，像新加坡、祕魯、和俄羅斯等國曾走過「不自由民主」的階段，也就是經濟強勁成長，但政治自由，包括新聞自由、法治及個人自由乏善可陳，直到自由的習慣和制度有機會發展。

Then, just after the start of the Iraq war, "There was a miniburst of optimism" that capitalism was leading to democracy after all, Mr. Mandelbaum said, with three popular uprisings in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan and elections in Gaza, Lebanon and Egypt in 2005. The burst quickly fizzled though, when the democratic "revolutions" proved short-lived and prone to violence and corruption.

後來，在伊拉克戰爭開始後不久，「曾有點樂觀」，以為資本主義終將導致民主政治，孟德邦說，2005年，烏克蘭、喬治亞及吉爾吉斯三國，民眾揭竿而起；加薩、黎巴嫩和埃及也舉行選舉。但這次民主爆發有如曇花一現，民主「革命」證明很短命，而且容易滋生暴力和腐敗。

Now some scholars argue that a free market can even end up undermining democracy. "Capitalism doesn't necessarily lead toward democracy at all," Mr. Scott said. "The one thing that you can say is that capitalism is going to relentlessly produce inequality of income, and eventually that is going to become incompatible with democracy."

現在，有些學者還主張，自由市場終將危害民主。「資本主義不必然會導向民主，」史考特說。「有一件事可以肯定，資本主義將殘酷地造成收入不公，最後這將和民主扞格不入。」

Even if capitalism does not assure democracy's existence, many economists and political scientists say it creates a hospitable atmosphere and helps democratic systems withstand turmoil. Nor should we forget, Stiglitz counsels, that "the movement from closed to open society is a very big change." Mandelbaum added that the "habits and values of a market economy, when transferred to the political sphere, make for a democracy."

即使資本主義不能確保民主的存續，很多經濟學家和政治學家指出，資本主義會製造一個寬容親和的環境，並幫助民主制度對抗社會動亂。史迪格里茲建議說，我們不應忘了，「從封閉走向開放社會的運動是一大變革。」孟德邦也說，「市場經濟的習慣和價值，當轉化到政治領域時，就會為民主催生。」

But China, he acknowledges, is "the big enchilada, the big test." Even with its growing middle class, it still has a billion poor people. Pressure for democracy will increase, but so will push back from China's leaders. So far they have been successful. "The Chinese government is pretty good at buying off intellectuals and the middle class who fear disorder much more than they want political participation," Fukuyama said.

但他認知，中國才是「大事，大考驗」。即使中產階級不斷增加，中國仍有10億窮人。實施民主的壓力會增加，但中國領導人會推回去，截至目前為止，他們很成功。「中國政府很會收買知識分子和中產階級，這些人比較擔心社會失序，較不關心政治參與，」福山說。

He added that he would not be surprised if China and even Russia were to come up with a "new type of authoritarian ideology that tries to justify" their non-Western systems. He has already heard the outlines of such arguments — which echo the "Asian values" idea of non-Western cultural norms that lead to different development paths — from Chinese intellectuals and Russian policy makers.

他又說，如果中國，甚至俄羅斯，想出「一套新的獨裁統治理念」，以便讓他們的非西方制度合理化，他也不意外。他已經從中國知識分子和俄羅斯決策人士聽到這種論點的大要，這和導向不同發展路徑的非西方模式「亞洲價值」概念互相呼應。

The question is what can be done to influence the process. As Fukuyama said, one point on which he has differed from neoconservatives in the Bush administration is that, "I think, in general, the United States can't do very much."

問題是，要做什麼來影響決策過程。誠如福山所說，他和布希政府中的新保守派看法不同的一點是：「我認為，大體上，美國能做的不多。」

《詞解》
Odd Couple 冤家
paparazzi 狗仔
ardent 熱烈
squelche 鎮壓
two sides of a coin 一體的兩面
jawbreaker-size hole 超大的洞
time frame 時間架構
authoritarian 獨裁主義
inextricably linked 互相糾結，密不可分
agitate 煽動
tipping point 引爆點
put a dent 引起注意
sure-footed 步履穩健
falter 動搖
anomaly 異數
popular uprisings 人民起義
relentlessly 無情殘酷
the big enchilada 大事