Years of Poems and Spirits

Saw plenty of Limbaugh coverage recently. But two images stuck in my mind. I definitely like the New Yorker one better. In fact, I left this cover on the kitchen counter, just to enlighten my mood every morning.

The Newsweek one is good. But is a little too serious, and trying too hard to make a point. As Eisenhower once said about Joe McCarthy, “you don’t want to get into a pissing contest with a skunk”.

文章来源：http://yantan.org/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=75063 （my comments after someone else’s rambling)

总觉得大家说民主的时候，有一种把民主“彻底化”的倾向：如果不是全民平等参政，就不是真正的民主：要么那是一种民主的前身，像雅典；要么那是一种虚伪的民主，想《民权法》以前的美国。

我以为这种把是否全民平等参政作为坐标单位太过粗糙，不能描述或解释世间万象。亨廷顿在他的《变动社会中的政治秩序》中，用（政治的）“参与程度”这个概念，则是有效多了。

从西方历史上看，政治发展的历史是一个政治参与逐渐扩大的过程。抽象点说，是一个从：
1. 一个人当政、一小撮人议政，到：
2. 一小撮人当政、一类人议政，再到：
3. 一小撮人当政、一类人参政、可能所有人能议政，但不是人人能参政。

照“民主彻底论”的看法，以上政体没有一个可以算得上真正的民主。然而今天的民主，不论怎么发达，怎么先进，都是从以前的这些所谓“非民主”状态中一步步进化过来的。而且，如果历史继续进步的话，今天的民主到了未来，可能仍被认为是（在那时看来）“非民主”。

如果民主的概念真是如此动态的话（我觉得是），那么这个概念不适于用来描述另一个动态系统（比如政体）。而政治参与度则是一个固定的概念。

拿古希腊做个例子，大家几乎都说：斯巴达采用了专制，而雅典采用了民主。事实上呢？斯巴达的统治集团包括两个国王，一个大祭司，加上28个元老。碰上战争等国家大事，这一集体领导的决定需要付诸公民投票通过后才可以实施。

雅典在谁有投票权上和斯巴达是一样的（拥有财产的男性公民），或者说参政人群是相同的。不一样的是：雅典采用的是直接参政制，而斯巴达是代表参政制。比如在城里化公款修个下水道什么的，雅典需要民众投票通过，而斯巴达是“国务院”决定。但轮到是否开战，增税等重大决定，两个城邦就没什么区别了。斯巴达的统治集团是由世袭贵族组成。雅典的官员虽说是公民选举，但愿意参选的往往是豪门世家。

这样看来，难道雅典和斯巴达真是有天壤之别吗？他们之间的区别到底是质的，还是量的？到底是民主与专制的区别，还是参与度的差异？

我想说的不是眼前中国和美国政体的差异只是“多少的问题”而不是“有无的问题”（这种玩笑还是不开的好）。我想说的是，在回顾和展望中国自身民主发展的过程时，不要把民主想成一个彻底的终点。如果越来越多的人能真正有效、平等地参与政治，这就是一种进步。

下一步要追求的是如何能把这种扩大的参与制度化，长久化。比如，把私人企业家吸引入党政领导的圈子，是一种参政扩展的体现。但如果这只是一个运动，是一个政绩工程，那就不算是一个制度化的行为。相反，如果允许他们自己成立产业联合会（甚至党派），成立思想库或游说集团，在立法程序上固定化地包括这一利益集团，那就是算是制度化的行为。

当然，通过公开选举和立法等，也可以达到同样的目的。而且这是真正民主的形式。这也是我想说的意思：如果咱们不把民主想成要么“是”要么“不是”，把民主看成一种目的，而是把它看成一种手段，以达到实现最大化参与的最终目的。那么我们的选择会多一些，道路会宽一些，说起来会更“理直气壮”一些。

Having been following microfinance for the last several years, I come to believe that this is an effective tool against poverty. Being a Chinese native, I always wanted to do something for China, in a meaningful and effective way. The newly established microfinance NGO, Wokai, fits the bill perfectly. So I have decided to contribute to, and to volunteer for Wokai.

My awakening to poverty came rather late, when I was in my early 20s. The college I attended is in a central Chinese city, Hefei, and the campus we lived on was a new extension and was under construction at the time.

Hefei was not a rich city. And the new campus was on the edge of the town. Naturally, the construction hired a lot poor peasants from surrounding areas. They lived in make-shift huts made of bamboo and plastic sheets on muddy ground outside of the construction sites. I visited this impromptu village once, trying to sell the laborers cigarettes my friend and I bought back from Beijing. Following the poor peasants to our campus were even lower lives–the beggars and trash pickers.

On a sunny early spring day, my father stopped by campus for a visit. I took him on a tour of the unfinished labs and classrooms. On our way back to my dorm, a trash picker crossed our path. He has a rather large build for a man in that area, but his back is so hunched that I could barely see his face, under a thick hat with wool ear flaps. Although it was a warm day and my father and I had only light jackets on, the trash picker wore a thickly padded short parka with a thick rope tied at waist.

He may or may not had a trash bag with him. Somehow that detail escaped me. But what I remembered so clearly was his parka. It was dirty alright, and was patched all over. But every patch I could see was cleanly cut, as my grandma used to say, “a square is a square and a circle is a circle”. And the patches were sewed on very neatly, so smooth that there was no a single crease I could see on his large, hunched back.

I didn’t know whether the trash picker saw us or not. He walked by without a look or a nod, as quiet as a ghost. He didn’t smell like I expected a trash picker would either. I couldn’t tell his age exactly but I knew he was about my father’s years.

The image of this old trash picker stuck in my mind from then on, thanks largely to the evenly sewed patches on his parka.

Since I settled down, I have been giving money to all kinds of “noble” causes. But I haven’t done much for the poor. I was never comfortable giving money away to people on the street–you don’t know what they are going to do with your money, but you suspect they will come back on the spot tomorrow and ask for more.

In that sense, nothing I have seen so far could alleviate this anxiety better than microfinancing. It channels my contribution not to any poor, but those with hopes of leaving poverty behind and with plans in their mind.

I hope everyone can come to join this enterprise.