為什么美國(guó)成功地把民主強(qiáng)加給日本，卻在伊拉克失敗了?
Why did USA succeed to impose democracy on Japan, but failed in Iraq?
譯文簡(jiǎn)介
我認(rèn)為其他答案都忽略了主要問(wèn)題。二戰(zhàn)后，美國(guó)和盟友宣稱他們致力于留在日本，監(jiān)督完全轉(zhuǎn)型為民主政治，并準(zhǔn)備長(zhǎng)期留在那里，直到任務(wù)成功完成。他們還將確保足夠的人員、軍事和其他資源可用，以防止其他外國(guó)干擾這一過(guò)程。美國(guó)和盟友信守了承諾。同樣的協(xié)議也適用于德國(guó)和韓國(guó)。
正文翻譯
Trevor Krause
I think all the other answer missed the main point. After WWII the USA and the allies stated that they were committed to staying in Japan overseeing the full transition to democracy and they were prepared to be there for a long time until the mission was successfully completed. They would also make sure enough personnel, military and other, were available with resources to prevent other foreign nations from interfering in the process. And the USA and Allies kept their promise. The same deal was done for Germany and Korea.
我認(rèn)為其他答案都忽略了主要問(wèn)題。二戰(zhàn)后，美國(guó)和盟友宣稱他們致力于留在日本，監(jiān)督完全轉(zhuǎn)型為民主政治，并準(zhǔn)備長(zhǎng)期留在那里，直到任務(wù)成功完成。他們還將確保足夠的人員、軍事和其他資源可用，以防止其他外國(guó)干擾這一過(guò)程。美國(guó)和盟友信守了承諾。同樣的協(xié)議也適用于德國(guó)和韓國(guó)。
I think all the other answer missed the main point. After WWII the USA and the allies stated that they were committed to staying in Japan overseeing the full transition to democracy and they were prepared to be there for a long time until the mission was successfully completed. They would also make sure enough personnel, military and other, were available with resources to prevent other foreign nations from interfering in the process. And the USA and Allies kept their promise. The same deal was done for Germany and Korea.
我認(rèn)為其他答案都忽略了主要問(wèn)題。二戰(zhàn)后，美國(guó)和盟友宣稱他們致力于留在日本，監(jiān)督完全轉(zhuǎn)型為民主政治，并準(zhǔn)備長(zhǎng)期留在那里，直到任務(wù)成功完成。他們還將確保足夠的人員、軍事和其他資源可用，以防止其他外國(guó)干擾這一過(guò)程。美國(guó)和盟友信守了承諾。同樣的協(xié)議也適用于德國(guó)和韓國(guó)。
Come Iraq and the US forces and Coalition partners had just finished sweeping aside the obvious forces of the last regime, then in a rush to leave the country said hold an election, set up a government and bureaucracy, now you have a democracy, you are on your own, we are going home, live long and prosper.
但在伊拉克，美國(guó)部隊(duì)和聯(lián)軍伙伴剛剛掃除了上屆政權(quán)的明顯勢(shì)力，然后急于離開(kāi)該國(guó)，說(shuō)讓他們舉行選舉，建立政府和官僚機(jī)構(gòu)，現(xiàn)在你們有了民主，你們自己負(fù)責(zé)，我們回家了，長(zhǎng)壽和繁榮
但在伊拉克，美國(guó)部隊(duì)和聯(lián)軍伙伴剛剛掃除了上屆政權(quán)的明顯勢(shì)力，然后急于離開(kāi)該國(guó)，說(shuō)讓他們舉行選舉，建立政府和官僚機(jī)構(gòu)，現(xiàn)在你們有了民主，你們自己負(fù)責(zé)，我們回家了，長(zhǎng)壽和繁榮
US forces are still stationed in Japan, Germany and Korea more than 50 years after the wars officially ended. The US has never appeared to have given that commitment to Iraq as a means of stabilizing a nation beset by problems internal and external in a volatile region. Iraq is a nation which is about as close as you can get to being a failed state without actually being called one.
二戰(zhàn)后50多年，美軍仍駐扎在日本、德國(guó)和韓國(guó)。美國(guó)似乎從未給伊拉克這樣的承諾來(lái)穩(wěn)定一個(gè)內(nèi)部和外部問(wèn)題繁多的國(guó)家，而它位于一個(gè)動(dòng)蕩的地區(qū)。伊拉克是一個(gè)接近于失敗國(guó)家的國(guó)家，但并沒(méi)有真正被稱為一個(gè)失敗國(guó)家。
二戰(zhàn)后50多年，美軍仍駐扎在日本、德國(guó)和韓國(guó)。美國(guó)似乎從未給伊拉克這樣的承諾來(lái)穩(wěn)定一個(gè)內(nèi)部和外部問(wèn)題繁多的國(guó)家，而它位于一個(gè)動(dòng)蕩的地區(qū)。伊拉克是一個(gè)接近于失敗國(guó)家的國(guó)家，但并沒(méi)有真正被稱為一個(gè)失敗國(guó)家。
The USA is definitely on the nose in that region of the world, but what else can you expect when you push your weight around, make promises you don’t keep, show disrespect to the locals, keep the wrong sort of company, work with unfounded assumptions and generally bad-mouth the region to others.
美國(guó)在該地區(qū)絕對(duì)名聲不佳，但當(dāng)你肆意妄為、不履行承諾、對(duì)當(dāng)?shù)厝瞬蛔鹬?、與不良伙伴合作、基于無(wú)根據(jù)的假設(shè)行事，并向他人詆毀該地區(qū)時(shí)，其他事情還能期望什么呢？
美國(guó)在該地區(qū)絕對(duì)名聲不佳，但當(dāng)你肆意妄為、不履行承諾、對(duì)當(dāng)?shù)厝瞬蛔鹬?、與不良伙伴合作、基于無(wú)根據(jù)的假設(shè)行事，并向他人詆毀該地區(qū)時(shí)，其他事情還能期望什么呢？
評(píng)論翻譯
很贊 ( 3 )
收藏
Japan adopted Democracy. Their own system had failed them. After WWII, America’s aims were benevolent. Japan needed to be disarmed and, like Germany, brought quickly to some semblance of normality. Again, as with Germany, no punishment of the nation as a whole, just the perpetrators. Good policy. Look how far Japan has come. And look how Japan has the kind of status in the Pacific that it tried to get by force of arms. Iraq was different in that Sadam was containing all sorts of factions. Democracy was not the cure. Iraq, unlike Japan, was ripe for Plunder. Countries joined with America for reward not idilogical reasons. The equivalent of Merchant Adventurers backed government policy in America. There was no altruism in our actions in Iraq. People cannot eat votes. People who are hell bent on killing each other in the name of God, or for national identity cannot be soothed. But it takes a long time to help people to evolve out of enmity and Our politicians work on four year cycles.
日本采納了民主制度。他們自己的制度已經(jīng)失敗了。二戰(zhàn)后，美國(guó)的目標(biāo)是善意的。日本需要解除武裝，并且像德國(guó)一樣迅速恢復(fù)正常。與德國(guó)一樣，沒(méi)有對(duì)整個(gè)國(guó)家進(jìn)行懲罰，只懲罰了罪犯。這是一個(gè)很好的政策?？纯慈毡救〉昧硕啻蟮倪M(jìn)步。看看日本通過(guò)武力爭(zhēng)奪的那種在太平洋地區(qū)的地位。伊拉克的情況不同，薩達(dá)姆控制著各種派別。民主不是解決之道。伊拉克，不像日本那樣，正處于掠奪的狀態(tài)。其他國(guó)家與美國(guó)合作是為了獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)而非意識(shí)形態(tài)原因。相當(dāng)于商業(yè)冒險(xiǎn)家支持美國(guó)政府的政策。我們?cè)谝晾说男袆?dòng)中沒(méi)有利他主義。人們不能靠選票養(yǎng)活自己。以上帝之名或民族身份而互相殘殺的人是無(wú)法安撫的。但是幫助人們走出敵對(duì)態(tài)度需要很長(zhǎng)時(shí)間，而我們的政治家只工作四年周期。
Japan had an elected Prime Minister since the Meiji Constitution. It is true that the Emperor and various military leaders did have a lot more power in Meiji Japan than they do now, and in many ways, those military leaders’ influence drove Japanese expansionism leading to WWII.
Here for example, is the Japanese general election, 1920.
自明治憲法開(kāi)始，日本就有選舉產(chǎn)生的首相。確實(shí)，在明治時(shí)期，天皇和各種軍事領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人在日本擁有更多的權(quán)力，許多方面上這些軍事領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人的影響推動(dòng)了日本的擴(kuò)張主義，最終導(dǎo)致了二戰(zhàn)。
例如，這是1920年的日本大選。
I think a better example would be Germany, which did not have a democratically elected head of state during WWII. Hitler never even won an election to become chancellor or President in the first place—Hitler lost the German presidential election, 1932 in a landslide.
我認(rèn)為一個(gè)更好的例子是德國(guó)，在二戰(zhàn)期間并沒(méi)有民主選舉產(chǎn)生的國(guó)家元首。希特勒甚至從未贏得過(guò)總統(tǒng)或總理的選舉，事實(shí)上，希特勒在1932年的德國(guó)總統(tǒng)選舉中以壓倒性的優(yōu)勢(shì)落選。
The German Parliament went against the will of the majority of eligible voters, and appointed Hitler into the position of Chancellor, which they themselves created.
On the Parliamentary level, the Nazi party was the largest party after 1932 but still had far less than 50% of Parliament on the day Parliament passed the Enabling Act of 1933, dissolved all parties but the Nazis, and gave Hitler direct control of Germany. The one member of German Parliament who was brave enough to speak out against the bill, Otto Wels, was stripped of his citizenship less than 5 months later.
德國(guó)議會(huì)違背了大多數(shù)有資格選民的意愿，任命希特勒擔(dān)任總理，而這一職位是他們自己創(chuàng)造的。
在議會(huì)層面上，納粹黨在1932年之后成為最大的黨派，但在議會(huì)通過(guò)了1933年的授權(quán)法案、解散了除納粹黨以外的所有政黨，并直接將權(quán)力交給希特勒時(shí)，納粹黨在議會(huì)中所占的比例遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不到50%。唯一一個(gè)在德國(guó)議會(huì)中勇敢反對(duì)該法案的議員奧托·韋爾斯，在不到5個(gè)月后被剝奪了公民身份。
下一次被稱為選舉的鬧劇發(fā)生在1933年11月的德國(guó)選舉中：
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://flyercoupe.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
In that election, voters in many communities were told that a ‘no’ vote on Hitler was not allowed, and many people feared reprisals from the government. Even politicians had been executed or lost their citizenship for opposing Hitler in Parliament. Most Germans would vote ‘Yes’ even if they opposed Hitler.
在那次選舉中，許多社區(qū)的選民被告知，對(duì)希特勒投下“反對(duì)”票是不允許的，許多人害怕政府的報(bào)復(fù)。甚至有政治家因?yàn)樵谧h會(huì)中反對(duì)希特勒而被處決或失去了公民身份。大多數(shù)德國(guó)人即使反對(duì)希特勒，也會(huì)投“贊成”票。
In East Germany, the Socialist Unity Party of Germany ruled the country in a one-party system.
For the other part of the question, I must ask:
Has democracy in Iraq failed?
因此，對(duì)于德國(guó)來(lái)說(shuō)，可以說(shuō)美國(guó)（及其盟友）將一種獨(dú)裁制度轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)榱嗣裰髦贫?，至少在西德是如此。而在東德，德國(guó)統(tǒng)一社會(huì)黨以一黨制統(tǒng)治了該國(guó)。
關(guān)于問(wèn)題的另一部分，我必須問(wèn)：
伊拉克的民主制度失敗了嗎？
The answer is no. It is true that radical Sunni groups like ISIS did defeat the Iraqi Army on the battlefield hundreds of times before the US started helping them, and at one point the Shia-majority Baghdad government lost control of most of the outlying areas, but does that mean Democracy failed?
巴格達(dá)選出的政府是否被美國(guó)的敵人推翻，類(lèi)似于美國(guó)支持的越南政府被北越克服？
答案是否定的。確實(shí)，像ISIS這樣的激進(jìn)遜尼派組織在美國(guó)開(kāi)始援助之前曾多次在戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)上擊敗伊拉克軍隊(duì)，而且伊拉克什葉派占多數(shù)的巴格達(dá)政府一度失去了對(duì)大部分邊遠(yuǎn)地區(qū)的控制，但這是否意味著民主制度失敗了？
I think we will need to wait and see if democracy in Iraq has truly failed. If things don’t improve after the Syrian Civil War ends, then maybe.
他們大部分的失敗是因?yàn)槲穆氄畬?duì)抗ISIS和疏遠(yuǎn)遜尼派派別的方式有缺陷，以及軍方打擊ISIS的方式有問(wèn)題。
我認(rèn)為我們需要等待并觀察伊拉克的民主制度是否真正失敗。如果在敘利亞內(nèi)戰(zhàn)結(jié)束后情況沒(méi)有改善，那或許可以說(shuō)是失敗了。
I would like to add something to how Hitler became Chancellor.
In the end of the Weimarer Republik, this is mostly the time after the World Economic crisis 1929, the Pr?sidialkabinette, i.e. governments based on the ernormous might of the Reichspr?sident as it is based in the constitution. After the last democratic government of Hermann Müller(SPD), consisting of the SPD, Zentrum, DDP, DVP and BVP, broke down due to disputes about increasing founds to the unemployment benefits.
After that Heinrich Brüning, Franz von Papen and Kurt von Schleicher ruled based on Hindeburg’s power and dependend on him. Hindenburg could disband the Reichstag(parliament of Germany at this time)(Article 25), he could limit the rights of the people and enact laws(Art.48).
我想補(bǔ)充一些關(guān)于希特勒如何成為總理的內(nèi)容。
在魏瑪共和國(guó)的末期，也就是1929年世界經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)之后，出現(xiàn)了所謂的總統(tǒng)內(nèi)閣，即以憲法規(guī)定的國(guó)家總統(tǒng)的巨大權(quán)力為基礎(chǔ)的政府。在赫爾曼·米勒（社會(huì)民主黨）領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的最后一個(gè)民主政府瓦解后，由于對(duì)增加失業(yè)救濟(jì)資金的爭(zhēng)議而導(dǎo)致的瓦解。
此后，海因里希·布呂寧、弗朗茨·馮·帕彭和庫(kù)爾特·馮·施萊謝爾依靠興登堡的權(quán)力統(tǒng)治，并且對(duì)他產(chǎn)生了依賴。興登堡可以解散國(guó)會(huì)（當(dāng)時(shí)的德國(guó)國(guó)會(huì)），他可以限制人民的權(quán)利并頒布法律（根據(jù)第25條和第48條）。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://flyercoupe.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
然而，對(duì)于希特勒成為總理來(lái)說(shuō)，最重要的是第53條：“第53條。帝國(guó)總理和根據(jù)他的建議，帝國(guó)部長(zhǎng)由帝國(guó)總統(tǒng)任命和解聘?！痹谀抢?，議會(huì)無(wú)法任命希特勒，并且議會(huì)對(duì)1933年的"授權(quán)法"（Enabling Act）的批準(zhǔn)是必需的。希特勒需要根據(jù)第48條取消德國(guó)共產(chǎn)黨成員在帝國(guó)議會(huì)中的席位，并為天主教徒提供中央黨額外的權(quán)益（中央黨是政治天主教派別的黨派），這導(dǎo)致了與教皇簽署的《政教協(xié)定》（Reichskonkordat）。
總理不依賴議會(huì)的這一立場(chǎng)源于俾斯麥在德意志帝國(guó)時(shí)期在國(guó)會(huì)中并不特別受歡迎，而威廉一世對(duì)他有信任。帝國(guó)總統(tǒng)是皇帝權(quán)力的延續(xù)，被稱為“代理皇帝”。
關(guān)于1933年11月的選舉結(jié)果，我們不能確定大多數(shù)德國(guó)人是否不支持希特勒。是的，SA（納粹黨的沖鋒隊(duì)）進(jìn)行了恐嚇，但魏瑪共和國(guó)的政黨和民主制度并不受歡迎，而且經(jīng)濟(jì)開(kāi)始復(fù)蘇。此外，天主教會(huì)和許多知識(shí)分子，例如馬丁·海德格爾（Martin Heidegger）或格哈特·豪普特曼（Gerhart Hauptmann），都支持希特勒。德國(guó)歷史學(xué)家漢斯-烏爾里?！ろf勒（Hans-Ulrich Wehler）認(rèn)為，這次選舉的結(jié)果在很大程度上代表了人民的心情。
We can’t say for sure how most Germans felt at that moment because all data was now being manipulated by the Nazis.
However, based on the last time the Germans had a say, Hitler got under 40% of their vote (which is also how the Nazis performed in Parliament).
我們無(wú)法確定大多數(shù)德國(guó)人當(dāng)時(shí)的感受，因?yàn)樗袛?shù)據(jù)都被納粹操縱了。然而，根據(jù)他們上次發(fā)表意見(jiàn)的情況來(lái)看，希特勒獲得了不到40%的選票（這也是納粹黨在議會(huì)中的表現(xiàn)）。
Yes, but in constrast to the last election they had more time and could do their political actions that I told in the post before. This would let me and as I told historian Wehler think that many Germans would approve the Regime.
是的，但與上次選舉相比，他們有更多的時(shí)間和政治行動(dòng)的空間，正如我在之前的帖子中所說(shuō)的。這讓我和歷史學(xué)家韋勒認(rèn)為，很多德國(guó)人可能會(huì)贊同這個(gè)政權(quán)。
30–40% of the population qualifies as ‘many.’
I was not arguing that Hitler was wildly unpopular, but more that his mandate and absolute authority was imposed on the German people, rather than legally and democratically elected.
I think it’s plausible that 60% of Germans supported him in 1934, but that still leaves 4/10 people who oppose him, but are afraid to voice their opinions.
30-40%的人口可以被視為“很多”。我并不是在爭(zhēng)論希特勒是否極其不受歡迎，而是他的授權(quán)和絕對(duì)權(quán)力是對(duì)德國(guó)人民的強(qiáng)制性施加，而不是合法和民主選舉產(chǎn)生的。我認(rèn)為1934年有60%的德國(guó)人支持他，但仍然有4成的人反對(duì)他，只是害怕表達(dá)他們的觀點(diǎn)。
That’s a weird way to answer the question. Even in the west you don’t generally judge whether democracy has failed in a country by whether or not they lost a war.
你這樣回答問(wèn)題很奇怪。即使在西方，你也不會(huì)通常通過(guò)一個(gè)國(guó)家是否輸?shù)粢粓?chǎng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)來(lái)判斷民主是否失敗。
The USA hoped that Iraq could be democratised just like Japan did after WW2 but the experiment failed. Here are the reasons:
· Different Societies: Japan was and is an homogeneous one that was peaceful whereas Iraq is an heterogeneous nation with different ethnicities such as the kurds, arabs e.t.c living in a same land but they always pitted against another. Establishing democracy in a ethnic divided society like iraq is a huge challenge and that was part of the problem for the americans.
美國(guó)希望伊拉克能像二戰(zhàn)后的日本一樣實(shí)現(xiàn)民主化，但這個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)失敗了。以下是原因：
· 不同的社會(huì)結(jié)構(gòu)：日本是一個(gè)和平的、同質(zhì)化的國(guó)家，而伊拉克是一個(gè)由不同族群組成的異質(zhì)國(guó)家，如庫(kù)爾德人、阿拉伯人等生活在同一個(gè)地區(qū)，但他們總是相互對(duì)立。在一個(gè)種族分裂的社會(huì)中建立民主制度是一個(gè)巨大的挑戰(zhàn)，這也是美國(guó)人面臨的問(wèn)題之一。
· 機(jī)構(gòu)解體：美國(guó)實(shí)施了去復(fù)興黨化政策，旨在解體已經(jīng)存在的機(jī)構(gòu)，如軍隊(duì)，并排斥遜尼派穆斯林參與不同形式的政府。這一政策導(dǎo)致了政治極化、宗派分裂和缺乏合格人才參與，從而使建立有效的民主制度變得困難。而日本則保留了其機(jī)構(gòu)，如天皇仍然在位、法律制度和受過(guò)良好教育的精英階層，為有效建立民主制度提供了支持。
· 缺乏經(jīng)驗(yàn)：與此同時(shí)，伊拉克長(zhǎng)期以來(lái)一直經(jīng)歷著專制主義和政變，缺乏民主實(shí)驗(yàn)的經(jīng)驗(yàn)。而日本在議會(huì)制度下享受了民主實(shí)驗(yàn)的成果，但在戰(zhàn)后時(shí)期曾一度失敗。
· 安全和穩(wěn)定挑戰(zhàn)：伊拉克在薩達(dá)姆被推翻后面臨著宗派主義、起義和恐怖主義的問(wèn)題，而薩達(dá)姆統(tǒng)治使該國(guó)相對(duì)穩(wěn)定，這使得美國(guó)占領(lǐng)者難以有效地建立民主制度。而日本則沒(méi)有面臨這樣的問(wèn)題，長(zhǎng)期的和平與穩(wěn)定使得民主化進(jìn)程得以和平進(jìn)行。
· 不同的計(jì)劃：美國(guó)沒(méi)有有效地規(guī)劃如何使伊拉克實(shí)現(xiàn)民主化，因此受到批評(píng)。而日本則實(shí)施了有效的民主化計(jì)劃，由道格拉斯·麥克阿瑟將軍和其他盟軍占領(lǐng)當(dāng)局共同策劃。
日本的民主化過(guò)程使得該國(guó)擁有了一個(gè)完全的民主制度，而伊拉克的困難民主化過(guò)程導(dǎo)致了該國(guó)形成了一個(gè)混合制度。你可以清楚地看到日本被評(píng)為完全的民主國(guó)家，而伊拉克則被認(rèn)為是一個(gè)威權(quán)政權(quán)。
I don't understand the metrics used to define how democratic a nation is. If we're going strictly by legal system, Iraq would technically be more democratic.
Also, if we aren't going by legal systems, I find it very strange for Japan's de facti one party state to be considered to be a full democracy versus China's one party state.
I don't trust these western metrics and stats. They're nonsense made to make the west look good. Just like how suicidal Finland happens to be the “happiest” country (I can imagine there's a huge survivorship bias at play). As if happiness can be quantified anyway.
我不理解用何種指標(biāo)來(lái)定義一個(gè)國(guó)家的民主程度。如果我們只按法律制度來(lái)看，伊拉克在技術(shù)上應(yīng)該比較民主。此外，如果我們不按法律制度來(lái)看，日本的事實(shí)上的一黨制被認(rèn)為是完全的民主，而中國(guó)的一黨制則不是。我不信任這些西方的度量和統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)。它們是無(wú)意義的，只是為了讓西方看起來(lái)好一點(diǎn)。就像自殺率極高的芬蘭被稱為“最幸?！钡膰?guó)家一樣（我可以想象那里存在巨大的生還者偏差）。好像幸福感也能夠被量化一樣。
Again, you have to choose between legalities and realities. If you want to talk about what's legally enforced, Iraq would be more democratic than the US. Look up how the government and elections work.
再次說(shuō)明，你必須在法律和現(xiàn)實(shí)之間做出選擇。如果你想談?wù)摲缮系囊?guī)定，伊拉克會(huì)比美國(guó)更民主。查一下政府和選舉的運(yùn)作方式。
There indeed could be obxtive reasons to define the USA - on the federal level - as a hybrid regime, also because the financing of campaigns depends on getting huge amounts of money from those that have it - with all the results. Systems with a more state financed party system (as in Europe) are more fair in this regard. Also, the high incarceration rate of citizens rather resembles that of an authoritarian regime. Just to name two examples. On the other hand, I am quite sure that the states and in particular the local levels are indeed free, everyone can run as a candidate there and would have a real and fair chance to be elected. What is an argument in favour of the point of view that the USA is rather democratic is that they do not have state controlled media, apart from some education channels.
事實(shí)上，有客觀的理由將美國(guó)——在聯(lián)邦層面上——定義為混合制度，因?yàn)楦?jìng)選資金的獲得取決于從持有巨額資產(chǎn)的人那里獲取巨額資金——帶來(lái)了所有的結(jié)果。擁有更多由國(guó)家資助的政黨體系（如歐洲）的系統(tǒng)在這方面更加公平。此外，公民高比例的投票現(xiàn)象更像是一個(gè)專制政權(quán)。這僅僅是兩個(gè)例子。另一方面，我相信各州和地方層面確實(shí)很自由，每個(gè)人都可以成為候選人，并有真正公平的機(jī)會(huì)當(dāng)選。美國(guó)比較民主的一個(gè)論點(diǎn)是他們沒(méi)有國(guó)家控制的媒體，除了一些教育頻道。
Characterising ww2 Japan as non-violent is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? It is a common mistake because Japanese brutality was mostly carried out in the Asia-Pacific during ww2 but I assure you they were not shy at the sight of blood, even of their own.
Japanese society was highly group compliance but it was no less turbulent than others. It was literally feudal Europe in a smaller sclae.
The Shogun was basically a military dictatorship with the Emperor being symbolical at best, puppet at worst.
把二戰(zhàn)時(shí)期的日本描述為非暴力的有點(diǎn)牽強(qiáng)。這是個(gè)普遍的錯(cuò)誤，因?yàn)槿毡镜臍埲绦袨榇蠖喟l(fā)生在亞太地區(qū)的二戰(zhàn)中，但我向你保證，他們對(duì)于流血并不感到害羞，甚至對(duì)自己的流血也不畏懼。日本社會(huì)高度團(tuán)隊(duì)合作，但它并不比其他社會(huì)更穩(wěn)定。它實(shí)際上就是一個(gè)規(guī)模較小的歐洲封建社會(huì)。幕府實(shí)際上是一個(gè)軍事獨(dú)裁，天皇最多只是象征性的存在，最壞情況下則是傀儡。
There was also this sense of purpose and urgency to rebuild Japan to counter the USSR and China, which was what lacking in the case of Iraq.
Conveniently, Iraq has a lot of oil so it is possible that powerful business groups may not find the idea of an effective central government amusing. It's easier to deal with corrupted leaders than those with integrity.
我懷疑日本之所以成功是因?yàn)樗麄冊(cè)诙?zhàn)結(jié)束時(shí)已經(jīng)是一個(gè)工業(yè)化國(guó)家?；A(chǔ)設(shè)施被摧毀，但人們掌握了知識(shí)和技能，可以快速重建，就像德國(guó)一樣，尤其是在得到大量外部支持的情況下。此外，日本也有意愿和緊迫感去重建，以對(duì)抗蘇聯(lián)和中國(guó)，而伊拉克缺乏這種意愿。方便之處在于伊拉克有大量石油，因此強(qiáng)大的商業(yè)集團(tuán)可能不會(huì)覺(jué)得一個(gè)有效的中央政府有趣。與腐敗領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人打交道比處理有誠(chéng)信的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人要容易得多。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://flyercoupe.com 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處
另一個(gè)主要原因是地理位置。日本是一個(gè)島國(guó)。傳統(tǒng)上，一旦島上所有人達(dá)成協(xié)議，它們就趨于穩(wěn)定，就像英國(guó)一樣。只需要投資于你的海軍，特別是如果你有美國(guó)作為安全保障。