Name: 法裡德觀點：全球人民對民主感到不滿！ (Fareed's Take: People around the world are dissatisfied with democracy)
Uploaded: 2025-12-26T16:58:36.000Z
Duration: 6 min 49 s

If you watch the news these days and feel that beyond the daily chaos, something seems broken in our politics, you're not alone.

如果你最近看新聞，感覺除了日常的混亂之外，我們的政治似乎有些地方出了問題，你並不孤單。

A recent Pew survey of 23 countries finds that a median of 58% of adults are dissatisfied with how their democracy works.

Pew 最近一項針對 23 個國家的調查發現，平均有 58% 的成年人對他們的民主運作方式感到不滿。

關係子句

In the US, more than 60% share that view.

在美國，超過 60% 的人有同樣的看法。

In Italy and France, nearly 7 in 10 people still prefer democracy to autocracy.

在義大利和法國，仍有將近 7 成的人偏好民主而非獨裁。

But dissatisfaction and despair have become ubiquitous.

Now, when I bring this up with people of a certain age, they often recall the 1970s.

現在，當我跟一些長輩提起這件事時，他們常常會想起 1970 年代。

Then too, Western democracies looked exhausted.

那時候，西方的民主國家看起來也精疲力盡。

In the US inflation, Vietnam and Watergate had eroded public confidence.

在美國，通貨膨脹、越戰和水門事件侵蝕了公眾的信心。

Samuel Huntington warned about the governability of democracy.

杭廷頓（Samuel Huntington）警告了民主治理能力的問題。

Daniel Bell saw capitalism corroding the virtues that sustained it.

丹尼爾．貝爾（Daniel Bell）認為資本主義正在腐蝕維持它的美德。

不過到了 1980 年代，情況有了轉機。

Economic reform and technological dynamism restored faith.

經濟改革和技術的活力重拾了信心。

Within a decade, communism collapsed and liberal democracy stood triumphant.

十年內，共產主義崩潰，自由民主國家取得了勝利。

The crisis of the 1970s proved to be a prelude to renewal.

1970 年代的危機被證明是復興的前奏。

But today's malaise feels different and deeper.

但今天的病態感卻感覺不同且更深層。

Governments performed poorly, but people still believed in the system.

政府表現不佳，但人們仍然相信這個體系。

但現在他們不相信這些規則了。

Today, America's central institutions, courts, media, universities, even elections are widely viewed as biased.

如今，美國的核心機構，像是法院、媒體、大學，甚至是選舉，都被廣泛認為是有偏見的。

Rigged trust in government has fallen to about 20%.

對政府操縱的信任感已降至約 20%。

Congressional approval often hovers in the teens.

國會準許率經常徘徊在十幾趴。

The media is trusted by less than a third of Americans, down from nearly three quarters in the 1970s.

如今不到三分之一的美國人信任媒體，相較於 1970 年代的近四分之三，數字已大幅下滑。

The issue is not competence, but cohesion.

問題不在於能力，而在於凝聚力。

Institutions once commanded respect because they seemed impersonal and rule bound.

過去機構之所以受到尊重，是因為它們看起來是非個人的、規則約束的。

但現在它們被視為政治行為者。

In the first episode of Michael Lewis brilliant podcast against the Rules, he talked about how in sports, fans shout ref, you suck.

在 Michael Lewis 精彩的播客 Against the Rules 的第一集裡，他談到在體育比賽中，觀眾會大喊「裁判，你爛透了」。

Even though officiating today is as accurate as ever.

即使現在的裁判判決準確度比以往任何時候都高。

The problem isn't performance, it's perception.

問題不在於表現，而在於觀感。

Once people decide the ref is biased, no amount of precision restores trust.

一旦大家認為裁判有偏見，再準確的判決也無法恢復信任。

The same story plays out in law, journalism and politics.

法律、新聞和政治界也上演著同樣的故事。

When referees are opaque or distrusted, the entire contest feels illegitimate.

當裁判不透明或不受信任時，整個比賽都會讓人覺得不正當。

Lewis point explains why accountability alone doesn't fix democracy.

Lewis 的觀點解釋了為何光是問責制無法修復民主。

More transparency can make bias more visible, which feeds rather than cures cynicism.

更多的透明度反而會讓偏見更明顯，這會加劇犬儒主義，而不是治癒它。

This helps explain the peculiar appeal of Donald Trump.

這有助於解釋 Donald Trump 的獨特魅力。

He has abandoned the pretense of neutrality altogether.

As president, he acts personally, politically, even punitively.

身為總統，他以個人、政治甚至懲罰性的方式行事。

而且他對支持者毫不掩飾地這麼做。

If all institutions are biased, better an avowed partisan than a hypocrite claiming neutrality.

如果所有機構都有偏見，寧可選擇一個公開的黨派人士，也不要一個聲稱中立的偽君子。

A 2023 study by Sung in Kim and Peter hall confirms this pattern.

Sung in Kim 和 Peter Hall 在 2023 年的一項研究證實了這種模式。

When citizens perceive the system as unfair or biased, they shift reference from neutral process to direct personalized rule.

當公民認為體系不公平或有偏見時，他們會將參考點從中立的程序轉移到直接的個人化規則。

Leaders who present themselves as fighters rather than referees, who attack courts, media and bureaucracies gain credibility precisely because they reject the system's pretense of fairness.

那些將自己定位為戰士而非裁判，攻擊法院、媒體和官僚機構的領導人，之所以獲得信譽，正是因為他們拒絕了體系對公平的偽裝。

Trump's rise also exposes a deeper divide between left and right populisms.

川普的崛起也揭示了左右翼民粹主義之間更深的鴻溝。

Kim and hall find that when people see unfairness as personal my job, my income, my future are unfair, they turn to right wing populace whose rhetoric frames their pain as betrayal by elites and outsiders.

Kim 和 Hall 發現，當人們將不公平視為個人的「我的工作、我的收入、我的未來不公平」時，他們會轉向右翼民粹主義者，他們的言論將他們的痛苦描繪成被精英和外來者背叛。

When they see unfairness as social society treats others unfairly, they gravitate to left populace who promise things like redistribution.

當他們將不公平視為社會性的「社會對待他人不公」時，他們會傾向於左翼民粹主義者，他們承諾像財富再分配之類的政策。

In recent years, the shocks that most unsettled people deindustrialization, automation, migration, secularization generate a sense of personal rather than social unfairness.

近年來，讓人民最不安的衝擊——去工業化、自動化、移民、世俗化——產生了一種個人而非社會不公平的感覺。

Workers fear being replaced, not merely that others are poor.

工人擔心被取代，而不是單純地擔心別人貧窮。

That fear produces anger and fits naturally with the rights narrative against migrants about protection, borders and national revival.

這種恐懼會產生憤怒，並且很自然地與右翼針對移民的論述相契合，談論保護、邊界和國家復興。

In anxious societies, vengeance is the easier appeal.

在焦慮的社會裡，復仇更容易引起共鳴。

Add to this a decades long campaign on the right to discredit America's basic institutions from bureaucracies to the press and trust has eroded just as intended.

再加上右翼數十年來詆毀美國基本制度的運動，從官僚機構到媒體，信任就像預期中那樣被侵蝕了。

The 1970s crisis ended when leaders set about making democracy deliver.

1970年代的危機在領導人著手讓民主制度發揮作用時結束了。

The people had doubted government competence but not its legitimacy.

人民質疑政府的能力，但沒有質疑其合法性。

Today's challenge is moral, not managerial.

今日的挑戰是道德上的，而非管理層面上的。

Institutions still function, but they've lost their aura of fairness.

制度仍在運作，但它們已經失去了公平的光環。

When citizens no longer trust the referees, they stop obeying the rules.

當人民不再信任裁判時，他們就不再遵守規則。

Every election becomes a civil war by other means.

每次選舉都變成了一場變相的內戰。

We have entered democracy's post referee age, a world where institutions are disbelieved, impartiality mocked and citizens choose sides not by policy but identity.

我們已經進入了民主的「後裁判時代」，一個機構不再被信任、公正被嘲笑，而人民選擇陣營不是基於政策而是身份認同的世界。

70年代的危機催生了一場復興。

Once people decided democracy was worth repairing, ours will end only when we decide it's worth believing again.

一旦人民決定民主值得修復，我們的民主就只會在我們決定它值得再次相信時才會結束。

Fifty years ago, people doubted their governments.

五十年前，人們質疑他們的政府。

The next democratic revival will not come from clever managers or technocratic reforms.

下一次民主復興不會來自聰明的管理者或技術官僚的改革。

It'll come from a rediscovery of trust, the invisible rule that makes all others possible.

它將來自對信任的重新發現，信任是讓所有其他規則得以實現的無形準則。

Unless we can believe again that the referee is trying to be fair, we will keep shouting ref, you suck at our own democracy.

除非我們能再次相信裁判是公平的，否則我們就會繼續在自己的民主裡大喊「裁判，你太爛了」。

And then wonder why the game no longer feels worth playing.

然後就會納悶為什麼這場遊戲不再值得玩了。

Go to CNN.com fareed for a link to my Washington Post column this week.

到 CNN.com fareed 網站，可以找到我這週的華盛頓郵報專欄連結。