博洛尼亞——這里是世界上最古老的大學(xué), 歐洲文藝復(fù)興的搖籃之一，讓人想起了500年前文藝復(fù)興初期曾經(jīng)居住在這附近的一位偉大的意大利人、現(xiàn)代史上首位政治學(xué)者——尼可羅•馬基雅維利。在馬基雅維利寫給友人弗蘭西斯科•維托里的信中，這名佛羅倫薩共和國國務(wù)秘書講述了自己在距此不遠(yuǎn)的鄉(xiāng)村里的流放生活。在漫長而平靜的日子里，每當(dāng)夜深人靜的時(shí)候，馬基雅維利總會換上宮廷的華服，進(jìn)入自己的書房。在那里，他廢寢忘食地閱讀先哲遺篇，與古賢心照神交。只有在那樣的漫漫長夜里，他才感覺不到饑餓干渴，也不再懼怕死亡。在那里，他寫下了流傳百世的代表作《論李維》。在此書中馬基雅維利將政治制度分成三個(gè)大類：君主制度、貴族制度和民主制度；而每種制度又有相對應(yīng)的墮落形態(tài)。君主制度可能墮落為暴君統(tǒng)治；貴族制度可能墮落為寡頭統(tǒng)治；民主制度可能墮落為放蕩無度的混亂。

馬基雅維利代表著文藝復(fù)興的精神內(nèi)核——求知求真的精神。正是這樣開明的觀點(diǎn)促成了人類所有活動領(lǐng)域的各種偉大發(fā)現(xiàn)，創(chuàng)造了現(xiàn)代世界。然而，與其它大規(guī)模文化哲學(xué)運(yùn)動一樣，文藝復(fù)興的理念已經(jīng)逐漸變得抽象、教條——成為處理人類事務(wù)無論何時(shí)何地都必須遵照的公理。封閉僵化的心態(tài)取代了求知求真的精神。在政治治理領(lǐng)域，人們開始迷信作為三種制度之一的民主制度是絕對正確的；而選舉在任何時(shí)候都是解決所有社會、政治和經(jīng)濟(jì)問題的靈丹妙藥。

但歷史經(jīng)驗(yàn)告訴我們，事實(shí)并非如此。是的，民主制度非常成功地推進(jìn)了西方的工業(yè)化，并在最近幾個(gè)世紀(jì)中使西方站在了世界之巔。不過，當(dāng)民主制度被移植到非西方國家時(shí)，收效良莠不齊，甚至許多地方被搞得一塌糊涂。事實(shí)上，如果我們仔細(xì)研究當(dāng)代的西方世界，我們可以發(fā)現(xiàn)，歐洲和美國的民主制度正在朝著馬基雅維利曾經(jīng)預(yù)警過的墮落形態(tài)發(fā)展。非常有趣的是，今日歐洲最有能力的政治家（指意大利總理馬里奧•蒙蒂）恰好也是歐洲唯一一名非選舉產(chǎn)生的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人。

問題是，直到最近幾十年以前，我們一直找不到選舉民主的反例。近代史上有許多民主治理失敗的例子，卻難以找到其它治理體系取得明顯成功的例子。

直到世人將目光投向中國。人們無法繼續(xù)忽略這一文明古國的復(fù)興和其優(yōu)勢所產(chǎn)生的重要意義。十?dāng)?shù)億人民從四分五裂的廢墟和赤貧的苦厄中站了起來，撐起了世界第二大經(jīng)濟(jì)體。中國在沒有進(jìn)行一次選舉的情況下，創(chuàng)造了這樣的奇跡?？梢哉f，今日的中國是一個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)性社會：創(chuàng)業(yè)精神推動著中國經(jīng)濟(jì)的增長；各級政府都在廣泛開展著政治實(shí)踐；藝術(shù)創(chuàng)造力使中國成為世界上最具活力的當(dāng)代藝術(shù)基地。中國目前仍有許多問題，其中不乏嚴(yán)峻的挑戰(zhàn)，但或許我們正在經(jīng)歷的，是另一場文藝復(fù)興的開頭。

中國復(fù)興之際，擺在全世界政治和知識界精英們面前的是兩條路。一條是否認(rèn)中國：這是一條簡單易行的道路，因?yàn)樵谠S多人封閉僵化的思想里，只需先驗(yàn)判斷就可以否定掉所有與民主、人權(quán)等普世真理相悖的事物。對這部分人來說，根本無需研究中國就能得出結(jié)論：中國不可能是特例，所以必將無可避免地走向失敗。許多年來，他們一直預(yù)測中國會垮掉。當(dāng)預(yù)言落空時(shí)，他們便將中國崩潰的時(shí)間點(diǎn)再推遲一二十年，然后坐等預(yù)言再次落空。

另一條路，是將中國的復(fù)興看做一種契機(jī)，去重拾那曾經(jīng)孕育現(xiàn)代世界的求知求真精神?；蛟S現(xiàn)在是以開明心態(tài)去研究中國現(xiàn)象的時(shí)候了；或許根本不存在唯一一套有效、公正地組織人類社會的原則。你們可以看到，在西方的政治、知識話語體系中，人們似乎對可檢驗(yàn)的命題不再感興趣。人們不再像文藝復(fù)興早期那樣，將觀點(diǎn)先作為假說提出來，而是直接奉為信條。以中國為例，接受多元化的世界或許會帶給西方一個(gè)絕好的機(jī)會，為陳腐的知識界樹立新風(fēng)。

讓我們緬懷另一位意大利先哲，那就是那不勒斯的哲學(xué)家詹巴蒂斯塔•維柯。在文藝復(fù)興的早期，維柯對永恒的普世真理提出了質(zhì)疑。他首先提出了關(guān)于文化的獨(dú)特性的觀點(diǎn)，并鼓勵(lì)世人接受文化的多樣性。誠然，與維柯的思想相反的笛卡爾、盧梭和康德在啟蒙運(yùn)動中占了上風(fēng)，但正如當(dāng)代政治理論家以賽亞•伯林所說，維柯的思想，不但從實(shí)踐上，更從原理上直接挑戰(zhàn)了所謂的絕對真理和基于其上的完美社會。當(dāng)西方領(lǐng)導(dǎo)著世界朝著所謂不可阻擋的普世理想前進(jìn)時(shí)，這些文藝復(fù)興早期的思想被抹殺了。

或許當(dāng)代東方的這場新文藝復(fù)興能夠重新喚醒沉睡的西方。（英文原文見第2頁。）

Bologna -- In the world's oldest university, a cradle of the European Renaissance, one is reminded of a great Italian who lived at the onset of that Renaissance half a millennium ago - the first political scientist Niccolò Machiavelli. In one of his letters to his friend Francesco Vettori, the Florentine Secretary talked about his days in exile in a village not far from Bologna.

After each long and uneventful day, when all were asleep, Niccolò would put on his royal garment and enter his study. There, for many hours, he would read the ancients, converse with them. And in those long hours of the night he felt no hunger, no thirst, and he no longer feared death. It was there that he wrote his seminal work, Discourses on Livy. In it, Niccolò classified all political systems into three types: monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. He wrote that each had its degraded form. Monarchy could degrade into tyranny, aristocracy into oligarchy, and democracy into licentiousness.

Niccolò represented the fundamental spirit of the Renaissance, the spirit of inquisitiveness. It was that open-minded outlook that drove great discoveries in all spheres of human activities and created the modern world. But over time, as most sweeping cultural and philosophical movements do, the ideas of the Renaissance became abstract and absolute doctrines - a set of universal axioms that must be applied to organize human affairs across all times and places. Inquisitiveness gave way to moral and intellectual certitude. In the realm of political governance, it means that democracy alone, among all other possible systems of governance, is infallible. Election is the magical solution to all social, political and economic ills anywhere, at any time.

But we know from empirical evidence that it is not so. Yes, democratic institutions have been highly successful in delivering the industrialization of the West; it allowed it to dominate the world in recent centuries. Yet, when it is implemented in non-Western cultures, the record is spotty at best, and miserable in many instances. Indeed, if we examine the contemporary West, one might argue that democracy in both Europe and America is edging dangerously towards what Niccolò forewarned as its degraded form. It is interesting to note that arguably the most competent statesman in Europe today is also its only unelected leader (Mario Monti).

The problem, however, is that up until recent decades, there really has not been a counter example to electoral democracy. There have been many failures of democratic governance but not any notable success stories of other systems of governance either.

That brings us to China. The significance of the re-emergence and ascendancy of the Middle Kingdom can no longer be ignored. More than one billion people of a dismembered state have risen from abject poverty to make up the second- largest economy in the world. And it has happened without a single election.

Indeed, today's China, like Renaissance Europe, is an experimental society. Entrepreneurship drives its economy; political experiments are conducted at all levels of government; artistic creativity has made the contemporary Chinese art scene one of the most vibrant in the world. Many problems exist, some are severe, nevertheless we may very well be witnessing the formative stage of another renaissance.

As the Chinese renaissance unfolds, the world's political and intellectual elites have two options. One is to deny it. This is the easy route because, in the closed minds of many, any ideas that are counter to the accepted universal truths of democracy and human rights are rejected a priori. To them, there is no need to examine the Chinese case as for certain it cannot exist and it must be on its way to inevitable failure. For many years, they have predicted China's collapse. Such a collapse has not happened, so they simply postpone the projected date by another decade or two and sit and wait.

The other is to see it as an opportunity to reignite the inquisitive outlook that gave birth to the modern world. Perhaps it is high time that we study the Chinese phenomenon with an open mind. Perhaps there isn't a singular set of fundamental organizing principles of human society that is effective and righteous. In the current political and intellectual discourses of the West, people no longer seem interested in testable propositions. Ideas are no longer posed as hypotheses, as they were at the beginning of the Renaissance, but as articles of faith. And, perhaps, with China's example, a healthy acceptance of plurality offers a chance for the West to rejuvenate its ossified intellectual ethos.

This brings to mind another great Italian, the Neapolitan philosopher Giambattista Vico. In the early days of the Renaissance, Vico questioned the doctrine of timeless universal truths. He originated the notion of the uniqueness of cultures and advocated the acceptance of their plurality.

As the contemporary political scientist Isaiah Berlin noted, Vico's ideas directly challenged the notion of absolute truths and a perfect society founded on them, not merely in practice but in principle. Of course, the opposing ideas of Descartes, Rousseau and Kant came to dominate the Enlightenment. As the West led the world in what has been propagated as inexorable progress towards the universal ideal, those early voices of the Renaissance were silenced.

Perhaps the contemporary renaissance in the East could serve to reawaken the West.

（本文英文版發(fā)表于《南華早報(bào)》： http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1099245/renaissance-east、赫芬頓郵報(bào)： http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-x-li/china-renaissance_b_2254288.html，觀察者網(wǎng)中文全文首發(fā)。）