比利亚娜·万科夫斯卡：“为什么选举本身也会成为一种安全威胁？”

【文/观察者网专栏作者 比利亚娜·万科夫斯卡，翻译/ 薛凯桓】

著名的弗朗西斯·福山（Francis Fukuyama）在最近一篇文章中，简要论述了2024年这个“选举年”。事实上，统计数据显示，今年大多数国家都举行了某种形式的选举。我浏览了一下这篇文章，看看有没有提到我的国家北马其顿（毕竟我是总统候选人），但并没有。

与大多数其他分析家一样，福山关注的焦点是美国的“哈姆雷特式选举”。公民们会选择唐纳德·特朗普还是将成为首位女总统的副总统卡马拉·哈里斯？这似乎是美国和国际社会争论的焦点问题，似乎世界的命运取决于谁入主白宫。在全球危机四伏、全人类有可能迎来悲惨结局的时刻，这种情绪尤为强烈。然而，尽管这一事件备受关注，但并非所有人都认为它将决定所有人的命运。

上海复旦大学的张维为教授提出了一个有趣的观点。他认为这出美国大戏（或者可以称为美国悲剧，因为这两个人在政治上是唯一的选择）反映了美国体制的弱点，其特点是奇葩化、两极化、侮辱性和全民标签化。他还指出，这种情况在中国是不可能发生的——不是因为中国是一党制国家，而是因为党内高层领导的选拔过程非常严格，无论谁领导国家，都能确保他们是在为公众利益服务方面久经考验的人。

来自德黑兰的穆罕默德·马兰迪（Mohammad Marandi）教授也发表了有趣的评论，他提到《纽约时报》的一篇分析文章认为伊朗插手甚至直接干涉美国选举。他说，伊朗人绝不会支持这两个“疯子”中的任何一个，因为他们都同样支持种族灭绝。

诺姆·乔姆斯基（Noam Chomsky）曾对美国两大政党有过一个著名的描述：美国公民不得不在百事可乐和可口可乐之间做出选择，这实在令人羡慕。杰弗里·萨克斯（Jeffrey Sachs）最近在剑桥大学的一次演讲中，也表达了同样的观点，甚至有过之而无不及。

他表示，虽然他传统上倾向于民主党，但他再也无法原谅他们了，因为他们对乌克兰和巴勒斯坦问题——这一威胁全球和平与安全的两大危机负有直接责任。但是，大多数人——即使是在学术界——出于纯粹的绝望，会选择他们认为较轻的邪恶，而哈里斯似乎在受过教育的人当中占了优势。

我同情他们，也理解他们，但令我恼火的是，他们甚至还在美化较轻的邪恶（实质上，这仍然是邪恶——他们对此心知肚明）。我有一位在加利福尼亚州从事和平问题研究的同事，我在他的社交媒体个人主页上对此发表了评论，结果却被取消了好友关系。显然，我触动了他的神经，因为我的评论（当然我要为此道歉，尽管这个国家在巴尔干半岛给我们带来了很多苦难）得到了他的一些粉丝的支持。无论如何，与美国社会未来的发展相比，这只是一个小插曲。

在这里我们不难得出这样的结论：无论（选举）结果如何，都将导致（美国的）合法性危机，并给已经两极分化的美国社会带来内部动荡。我记得小布什赢得第二任期时，尽管他推行了灾难性的政策，但我们中的许多人安慰自己，认为这是朝着结束那些不可持续的政策迈出的一步，也许也是朝着帝国衰落迈出的一步。

巴西民调机构AtlasIntel发布的11月初七大摇摆州民调数据AtlasIntel

但这样的过程——就像建立不同的世界秩序一样——是漫长的，我们永远无法准确预测这个过程何时或如何结束，以及会产生什么样的后果……这些后果将不可避免地以同心圆的方式向外涟漪，从国家舞台蔓延到全球舞台。

熟悉美国政治的人（在此我要再次提到杰弗里·萨克斯，他几十年来一直与政治精英们保持着密切联系，受到他们的尊敬）都知道，尽管有这么多奇特现象，但美国总统并不是真正的权力中心。国家是由其他人管理的，而公众关注的是总统个人和其性格特征。这种“民族安全国家”（一个西方学术概念，与“民主国家”相对立，通常被用于标签化或污名化与西式民主不同的国家体制）或者说军工-媒体-学术复合体，正是美国缺乏真正民主的根本原因。

尽管美国是这个世界上最富裕的国家，其关于社会凝聚力以及在公共福利等关键问题上的社会契约都处于混乱状态，但政府机构却能确保自身的生存和延续。仔细分析不难发现，拜登政府在许多方面只是延续了特朗普第一任期的政策。同样，如果特朗普现在获胜，也很难指望他会带来任何重大的、积极的变化，尤其是在外交政策方面。

尽管民主党意识到了体制的裂痕和变革的必要性，但他们还是想尽一切办法来维持这个功能失调的体制，甚至不遗余力地对其进行军事化，乃至到了自我毁灭的集体歇斯底里的地步。就在大选前几天，他们还派出了一支强大的军事特遣队去“保卫”以色列，仿佛战争是他们的挡箭牌，就像试图攻击他们的竞争对手一样（常常被拿出来说事）。我认识一些德高望重的民主党支持者，他们对拜登和哈里斯的最新举动感到沮丧，甚至在问自己：这些人到底还想不想赢？

然而，美国教授弗拉基米尔·戈尔茨坦（Vladimir Goldstein）等更明智的分析家，则不太关注对选举的预测和对赌，而是更注重研究当前气氛背后的深层原因，即为什么选举本身已经快要被视为一种安全威胁？

戈尔斯坦道出了特朗普吸引美国社会底层民众的秘密。在特朗普大量未经思考的言论中（通常来自一个支离破碎的头脑），每个人都能听到自己想要的东西。最重要的是，他所传递的信息能引起普通选民的共鸣，其中包括针对移民的国家安全呼声、孤立主义、以美国自身为中心等议题，以及通货膨胀、住房稀缺、资助外国战争和国家的预算消耗等问题。

戈尔斯坦抓住了普通美国人的核心困境：为什么我们要在国外打仗，而不是在国内再造繁荣？然而，高薪聘请的、往往是伪专家的分析师们却坚持认为，美国有责任进行海外干预，而不应优先考虑国内事项。

图片来源：新华社

长期以来，任何对此提出质疑的人，都会被贴上法西斯主义者、狂热分子或是“无知大众”等标签。这种受精英主义驱使、被意识形态蒙蔽的自由主义伪民主精英，对特朗普或类似人物所体现的（民粹）反弹负有直接责任。但凡还有一丝常识，就还有人会倾听愤怒者、被遗弃者、失望者和底层穷人的声音，重新考虑美国外交和国内政策的优先事项——以免为时已晚。

美国的制度就像一条古老的大蛇，在猎物气味的诱惑下吞食着自己的尾巴，对自我毁灭的后果熟视无睹。这种对权力和控制的欲望压倒了理性判断，使系统陷入自我毁灭的循环。有些人认为这会导致美国的自我毁灭；有些人则认为这是一个无休止的生死轮回，但无论如何，结果都不会太好。这次选举不会使美国成为一个更宜居、更体面的公民居住地，也不会诞生一个更明智的全球政治参与者。相反，它只会成为美国悲剧下一阶段的前奏。

帝国不会无声无息地消亡，它们会试图挣扎、反抗，并试图掌权到最后，结果往往会留下满目疮痍——拥有巨大影响力的美国也不例外。它的内部分裂和两极分化显而易见，但其全球影响力意味着其斗争不可避免地会影响到其国界以外的地区。随着其他地区和大国的崛起，我们目睹了全球力量的重组变化，问题不仅在于美国的发展轨迹，还在于世界其他地区将如何经受这些震荡，并重塑自身以做出回应。

因此，无论我们是否愿意，我们都不仅仅是旁观者，而是深深地卷入了帝国衰落的动态发展之中。历史告诉我们，帝国很少会安静地进入黑夜。

英文原文：

In a recent article, (in)famous Francis Fukuyama briefly discusses 2024 as the "year of elections." Indeed, statistics show that this year, most countries have held some kind of election. I browsed through the article to see if there was any mention of my country Macedonia (after all I was a presidential candidate); in vain. Like most other analysts, Fukuyama focuses on the “Hamletian choice” in the U.S.

Will the citizens choose Donald Trump or Vice President Kamala Harris, who would become the first female president? This appears to be the pivotal question in both American and international debates, as if the world’s fate hinges on the individual who enters the White House. This sentiment is particularly intensified in a time of global crisis, which threatens to bring about a tragic end for all humankind. However, while the event is of high interest, not everyone considers it to be decisive.

The rest of the world (the global majority) has already decided not to tie its fate to the chaos and political fervor in the U.S. Professor Zhang Weiwei from Fudan University in Shanghai offered an interesting perspective. He sees this American drama (or American tragedy, with these two figures posing as the only political options) as a reflection of the system’s weaknesses, characterized by spectacle, polarization, insults, and the labeling of entire populations.

He rightly points out that such a scenario would be impossible in China—not because it's a one-party state, but because the selection process for high party leadership is so rigorous that, whoever heads the country, it’s assured that they are someone proven in serving the public good.

Professor Mohammad Marandi from Tehran also offered an interesting comment, referring to a New York Times analysis that suggested Iran was rooting for or even meddling in American elections. He remarks that Iranians would never favor either of these “maniacal figures,” as both equally support genocide.

It’s hard to envy American citizens for having to choose between Pepsi and Coca-Cola, as Noam Chomsky once famously described the two major parties. In a recent talk at Cambridge, Jeffrey Sachs echoed the same sentiment, even taking it a step further. He stated that although he’s traditionally leaned toward the Democrats, he can no longer forgive them, as they are directly responsible for the two major crises threatening global peace and security: Ukraine and Palestine.

But most people—even within academia—out of sheer desperation, choose what they perceive as the lesser evil, and it seems Kamala has the edge among the educated.

I sympathize with them, I understand them, but what irritates me is the need to beautify even the lesser evil (which, in essence, remains evil—and they know it well). I commented on this on a California peace studies colleague’s social media profile—and ended up getting unfriended.

Apparently, I hit a nerve, as my comments (apologizing, of course, for interfering in another country's elections, though that country has caused us plenty of grief here in the Balkans) began receiving support from some of his followers. Anyway, this is a minor episode compared to what lies ahead for American society.

It’s not hard to conclude that whatever the outcome, it will lead to a legitimacy crisis and internal instability in an already polarized society. I recall when George W. Bush won his second term, despite the disastrous policies he pursued. Many of us consoled ourselves, thinking that this was a step toward ending those unsustainable policies and perhaps a step closer to the fall of the Empire.

But such processes—just like the building of a different world order—are lengthy, and we can never predict with certainty when or how they will conclude. And with what consequences... which will inevitably ripple outward in concentric circles, from the national to the global stage.

Those familiar with American politics (and here I’ll again mention Jeffrey Sachs, a man who has spent decades closely connected with, or respected by, the political elite) know that, despite all the spectacle, the U.S. president is not the true center of power.

The country is managed by others while the public focuses on personalities and character traits. This “national security state” or the military-industrial-media-academic complex is the very reason for the lack of genuine democracy. Although social cohesion is in disarray, along with the social contract on key issues of public welfare in one of the world’s wealthiest nations, the apparatus that governs ensures its own survival and continuity.

A closer analysis would easily reveal how, in numerous ways, the Biden administration has simply extended Trump’s policies from his first term. Likewise, it’s hard to expect that if Trump wins now, he would bring any significant (positive) changes, especially in foreign policy.

Although aware of the fractures in the system and the necessity for change, the Democrats have done everything possible to sustain this dysfunctional system, even to the point of a self-destructive collective hysteria with their relentless militarization.

Just days before the election, they’re sending a strong military contingent to “defend” Israel, as if war were their trump card, just as attempted attacks on their rival candidate were. I know respected Democrat supporters who are disheartened by Biden and Harris’s latest moves and are even asking themselves: do these people even want to win?

However, wiser analysts, such as American professor Vladimir Goldstein, focus less on predictions and bets and more on examining the deeper reasons behind the current climate—namely, why the election itself is perceived almost as a security threat. Goldstein speaks to the secret of Trump’s appeal to the lower social classes in American society.

Amid the flood of unfiltered statements from Trump (often from a fragmented mind), each person hears what they want. Above all, his messages that resonate with the average voter include calls for national security against migrants, an isolationist, self-centered agenda, and issues like inflation, housing scarcity, and budget drain for funding foreign wars and countries.

Goldstein captures the core dilemma of the average American: why do we fight wars abroad instead of securing prosperity here at home? Yet well-paid, often pseudo-expert analysts insist that the U.S. has a duty to intervene overseas, dismissing domestic priorities.

Anyone who questions this has long been labeled a fascist, a fanatic, or simply part of the “ignorant masses.” This liberal, quasi-democratic elite—driven by elitism and blinded by ideology—is directly responsible for the backlash embodied by Trump or similar figures.

If there was even a shred of common sense left, someone might listen to the voices of the angry, the abandoned, the disappointed, and the poor at the bottom, and reconsider the priorities of both foreign and domestic policy—before it’s too late.

The American system is ensnared, resembling the ancient Ouroboros, a serpent that, lured by the scent of its prey, consumes its own tail, oblivious to the self-destructive consequences. This lust for power and control overrides rational judgment, trapping the system in a self-defeating cycle. Some see this as leading to self-destruction; others view it as an endless cycle of life and death. Either way, the outcome is grim.

Tomorrow’s election won’t turn the U.S. into a more livable, decent place for its citizens, nor will it produce a more sensible global player. Instead, it will serve merely as a prelude to the next phase of the American tragedy.

Empires do not fade quietly; they thrash, resist, and attempt to hold on to power until the end, often leaving devastation in their wake. The United States, with its vast influence, is no exception. Its internal fractures and polarizations are evident, yet its global reach means that its struggles inevitably affect regions far beyond its borders.

As we witness shifts in global power, with other regions and powers rising, the question becomes not only about the trajectory of the U.S. but about how the rest of the world will weather these tremors and reshape itself in response.

Thus, we are not just spectators but are deeply involved, whether we like it or not, in the unfolding dynamics of a declining empire. And as history has shown us, empires rarely go quietly into the night.