我的《信報》文章(2020年 8月19日A12頁) 足本
《亂世佳人》下架 與「智主政治」冒起
假如《唐伯虎點秋香》、《西廂記》、《桃姐》(香港2011年電影)、《崑崙奴》(唐朝傳奇)被要求下架，原因是故事美化了主僕關係、「洗白」了奴隸制度，或涉及種族主義，華人大多一笑置之。因為故事重點是關於人情恩愛、忠肝義膽，而非社會等級。
在美國，一篇6月8日的文章要求《亂世佳人》下架，因它褒揚戰前南方(glorifies the antebellum south)。支持聲音席卷(乃古文用法，《信報》改為「席捲」，不對)全國，一時間群情洶湧，電影公司無法招架，承認其所描述的種族關係「當時是錯誤的，今天(依然)是錯誤的…」翌日急急下架(包括動畫在內的大量影片及電視劇也受到嚴厲批評，下架如山倒) 。
兩星期後，《亂世佳人》再上架，但在放映前添一段4分鐘短片，申明電影沒有顯現奴隸制的「恐怖」之處(horrors)。
[Note 1]
的而且確，在女主角身旁，觀眾所看到的黑奴，是奮勇護主的田工、忠誠勤勞的家丁、縱使曾因說謊被打耳光但在北軍到達後仍然不離不棄的侍婢，還有那位始自幼時替換尿布起悉心照顧、青春玉立期間善言進諫的褓姆。
電影沒有對奴隸制作出任何貶斥。故此，即使為黑奴角色塑造光輝、正面形象的戲劇效果，亦無法平息當今群眾的怨憤
(resentment)。
情緒化的怨憤力量，通過社交媒體，對社會及政治造成了廣泛、巨大的震撼。左翼及右翼群體伐異黨同(例如一批人，包括《哈利·波特》作者羅琳，聯署文章在7月7日提出批評後，另一批人隨即聯署於7月10日發文反駁，且措詞辛辣，之後攻訐不斷)，形成新一潮的「取消文化」，任何被指為政治不正確的人或物都會被要求刪除。
[Note 2]
所謂的「藝術創作自由(實質是任意)」被唾棄，《亂世佳人》下架是文化的顯例。取消「奧巴馬醫改」、英國脫歐等，則是政策層面的傑作。
近20年，常見歐美左翼政黨上台執政後，取消前右翼政府的政策;右翼政黨掌權後，前朝偏左的政策作廢。不僅反反覆覆，而多項為了討好情緒化群眾的政策，也被論證為短視阿諛、不符科學。
有見及此，歐美兩地學者不約而同，倡議對「智主政治」( Epistocracy)作出深入的研究，以解決民主體制內，政策反覆及質劣的弊端。
美國喬治城大學教授
Jason Brennan，認為民主制度的優點被高估了。新方向應該是在決策過程中，大幅增強專家意見的權重。除了修改一人一票制，還建議容許專家委員會否決民選議員制定的政策(詳見《反對民主》Against Democracy 2016) 。
[Note 3]
其論述在國內外漸受關注。印度有曾於牛津、哈佛就讀的年青人Avani Bansal，以新冠肺炎為切入點，痛陳民主之弊，倡議轉向智主政治。
[Note 4]
在大西洋彼岸，由近50個國家/地區300多個學術機構，組成的歐洲政治研究聯盟 (ecpr.eu) ，基於古希臘柏拉圖(Plato 公元前428-348)，主張社會只由精通哲理及數學的人管治，在2016年以「柏拉圖對嗎？應該由專家來統治嗎？」為題，徵求研究論文。
[Note 5]
聯盟先引用 Amartya Sen 2011年的研究，確認非民主的中國共產黨，在醫療、教育、脫貧等多方面的管治，均較實行民主的印度優越。
另比對同在1960年代獨立、人口規模及生活水平大致相若的新加坡和牙買加，驗證實行民主的後者發展遲緩，不民主的前者卻恰恰相反，今天的人均產值是牙買加的9倍。
聯盟因此提問:讓受過相關教育及培訓的能幹者制定政策的「智主政治」，是否較民主為佳? 迄今共徵得19篇論文。我認為，除了討論政策專業人士的「工藝」(craftsmanship) 那篇較像樣外，其他都乏善足陳。
這情況並不教人意外。因為柏拉圖哲學被民主理念邊緣化了至少兩個世紀，很多政治學教授、學生對此僅略知一二(當年全班主修政治的同學，只我一人修讀柏拉圖課程，而授課老師來自宗教系) 。
而重要的是，倡議「智主政治」的冒起，有助北京在國際關係的逆境中，創造「旋乾轉坤」[Note 6]的效果。
美國國務卿蓬佩奧，7月23日以「共產中國」為題演講。認定中共的非民主治理模式，不單傷害同樣「也是以上帝的形象造出」的中國人民，還威脅全球(難怪要壓制勸人「不語怪力亂神」的孔子學院) 。他呼籲持相同想法的民主國家對美國一呼百應，促使中國改變。
[Note 7]
的而且確，中國政體的運作模式，不依據西方民主範例。鄧小平在1980年代所訂定的新規，我認為是把古代「學而優則仕」的科舉制度現代化(與港人熟稔的政務主任招聘、輪調、晉升制度有少許相似) 。
*** 詳見拙作 Keith K C Hui: Helmsman Ruler 2013
於內地做學問的加拿大學者貝淡寧(Daniel A. Bell)，在其2015年的《中國模式》一書中，用詞彙 meritocracy ，描述中國的政治運作模式。有人譯之曰「唯才是用」，但我相信「提才拔能制度」更切合現代實況。
[Note 8]
當任何國家的全民教育常態化、選拔晉升標準化、繼任職位規範化等得到落實，「提才拔能」乃民主選舉以外的另類可行選擇。
儘管提才拔能之論暫時在西方受冷落，但隨着千瘡百孔的民主制度，於歐美造成左翼右翼兩極化;在第三世界國家因淪為數人頭幼稚遊戲，而導致身份政治衝突惡化，到處動盪不安，使人煩厭。
如今，類似但不等同「提才拔能」的「智主政治」在西方冒起，表明至少有部分學者、從政者，不再相信民主是唯一的可行政治制度，且對尋求替代民主的態度變得認真。
北京若能成功推廣或激活關於智主政治及提才拔能的討論、研究、考證，不單可抗衡以美國為首的五眼聯盟，更能在國際社會，尤其是非英語區域，獲得更多注意及信任; 扭轉民主思想壟斷主流的形勢，有助中國和平崛起。
在中華大地，對「狀元及第」羨慕而非嫉妒的平凡百姓胸懷坦蕩，何來怨憤? 頌讚少數民族山歌文化的《劉三姐》固然流芳百世，像《穆桂英》、《陳圓圓》般對家國影響截然不同的亂世佳人，亦當然永不下架。
Notes for Reference
[Note 1]
LA Times, 2020 June 8
“Gone With the
Wind,” however, is its own unique problem. It doesn’t just “fall short” with
regard to representation. It is a film that
glorifies the antebellum south. It is a film
that, when it is not ignoring the horrors of slavery, pauses only to perpetuate
some of the most painful stereotypes of people of color.
BBC, 2020 June 10
HBO Max said the 1939 film
was "a product of its time" and depicted "ethnic and racial
prejudices" that "were wrong then and are wrong today".
The wording of the statement is
similar to advisories that accompany Tom and Jerry cartoons and other vintage
animations on various streaming services.
Tom and Jerry carries racism
warning
Disney+ also advises its
subscribers that some of its older films - among them 1941 animation Dumbo -
"may contain outdated cultural depictions".
HBO's decision follows the removal
of Little Britain from Netflix, BritBox and BBC iPlayer. The show saw Matt
Lucas and David Walliams play characters from different ethnic backgrounds,
including Desiree DeVere - a woman played by Walliams in full blackface.
ABC News Australia, 2020 June 25
Gone with the Wind has returned to HBO Max with a four-minute disclaimer explaining how the film "denies
the horrors of slavery" two weeks after it was pulled from the streaming
service.
Wiki, Gone with the Wind (Film 1939)
Hattie McDaniel as Mammy (house servant)
Oscar Polk as Pork (house servant)
Butterfly McQueen as Prissy (house
servant)
Everett Brown as Big Sam (field foreman)
[Note 2]
Quillette, 2020 July 14
On July 7th, 153 mostly
left-leaning intellectuals wrote a letter to Harper’s Magazine,
expressing their opposition to “a new set of moral attitudes and political
commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate.” The Harper’s letter prompted a discussion about the
scale, and indeed the existence, of what has become known as “cancel
culture” (though the
signatories did not explicitly use that term).
On July 10th, a counter-letter, signed by 164 journalists, writers, and academics, was
published in The Objective. (Although it should
be noted that 25 of the “signatories” did not actually disclose their names,
apparently due to fear of professional retaliation.) According to the
counter-petitioners, the Harper’s letter
was deficient on a number of counts.
[Note 3]
Brennan, his book Against
Democracy 2016, and the debate thereafter:
Against Democracy is
a 2016 book by political philosopher Jason Brennan.[1]
The book challenges the belief that the simplified
version of democracy used
nowadays is good and moral.
In his work, Brennan primarily suggests that voters tend
to be irrational and ignorant about politics.[2] He believes that there is
little incentive for voters to inform themselves about politics, as they
believe (correctly) that one vote will not make a great difference in the
overall election results. Moreover, he states that voters tend to make
decisions that are ideologically inclined and easily manipulated.
Brennan presents and discusses different alternatives of
"the rule of the knowledgeable" (epistocracy),
where only the most knowledgeable voters get to elect our leaders.[3]
2018
In 2016, Georgetown
University political philosopher Jason Brennan published a controversial
book, Against Democracy. He argued that democracy is overrated — that it
isn’t necessarily more just than other forms of government, and that it doesn’t
empower citizens or create more equitable outcomes.
2018
Epistocracy
or Democracy
2018
In this paper I defend a
form of epistocracy I call limited
epistocracy – rule by institutions housing expertise in non-political areas
that become politically relevant. This kind of limited epistocracy, I argue,
isn't a far-off fiction.
2019
Against Epistocracy
[Note 4]
The Wire, 2020 Apr 22
One of the answers in
response has been ‘epistocracy’. Simply put, a
government run by those who have knowledge or are experts in some way. The
critique of democracy and the alternative of epistocracy are best explored
(arguably) in Jason Brennan’s 2016 book, Against Democracy, where he draws upon the idea of J.S. Mill amongst others
and presents epistocracy as an alternative – governance by those who have
political knowledge.
[Note 5]
ECPR Joint Session of
Workshops Pisa, Italy 24 April – 28 April, 2016
Was Plato Right? Should the
Experts Rule?
Paper
List
[Note 6]
baike.baidu.com/item/旋乾转坤
意思是比喻從根本上改變社會面貌或已成的局面。
成語出處
唐·韓愈《潮州刺史謝上表》：陛下即位以來，躬親聽斷，旋乾轉坤。
[Note 7]
US Department of State, “Communist China and the Free World’s Future’,
Speech by Michael R. Pompeo, Secretary of State, July 23, 2020.
Here’s where I’ll begin: It’s a bit patronizing to the people of China
to make such an assertion that they are not free-thinking beings, that they’re
not rational people who were given – I mean, they too
were made in the image of God, right. They have all the capacity that
anybody in the world does. So to somehow think that we ought to ignore the
voices of the people of China seems to me the wrong approach. It is true the
Chinese Communist Party is a one-party rule. And so we will deal with the
Chinese Communist Party as the head of state for China, and we need to, and we
need to engage in dialogue. But it seems to me we would dishonor ourselves and
the people of China if we ignored them.
[Note 8]
Daniel
A. Bell, and his book 2015:
zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/貝淡寧
The
China Model: Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy
by Daniel
A. Bell
