我们最需要警惕的信号是什么？

我们最需要警惕的信号是什么？无论是政治观察者还是政治活动家，当我们从历史中汲取教训时，最应当警惕的，既不是富有野心的精英，也不是愚昧暴戾的群氓，而是这二者的结合：个别精英与多数群氓在各自的投影中找到了栖身之所，形成了某种超越君臣类似父子的奇特联盟。当这一联盟出现在民主社会时，就是一个值得警惕的危险信号，因为有可能下一步，就是民主的慢性死亡。

罗马从共和国向帝制的蜕变，就是一个范例。许多人以为覆灭共和的那个人是凯撒及其后继者屋大维。其实，这一进程早就开始了。比较明显的例子就是苏拉与马略的政治斗争。胜利的苏拉成为无限期执政的独裁官（罗马应对紧急状态的一种官职），而苏拉的权力，不仅在于职位，也在于群氓，他们对苏拉的疯狂崇拜，对苏拉政敌无法无天的攻击，让苏拉的耳目与利刃遍布大街小巷……这让无论是舆论场，元老院，还是军队，都无人敢挺身对抗。至于法律？苏拉并未违法干那些勾当，都是群氓干的，群氓嘛，本就不是守法良民，何须大惊小怪，万一搞得过火，烧了某位贵族的府邸，杀了某位官员，找几个顶罪的就是，但寒蝉效应已然形成。虽然苏拉碍于共和传统和健康原因，最后装模作样的退休，但仍大权在握，无人敢反抗他与他那些杀气腾腾的群氓，虽未称帝，与帝何异？讽刺的是，被他打败的对手马略，其实也想走这条路子，但在洞悉群氓的心理需求上，终还是差了苏拉一筹。

凯撒和屋大维，其实也不过是这条路的继承者。对他们来说，很多时候，群氓充当政治打手是最得心应手的，毕竟出动军队限制太多动静太大，不像群氓般如臂指使。

与普通的雇佣打手相比，虽然钱也是需要的，但群氓的崇拜，却一定有着真实的狂热。这是区别和超越一般民粹政治的特征。普通的民粹政治，更多的是政客迎合民意，民意裹挟政客，民意是父，政客是子。而比之更进一步也更危险的是，民意已完全屈服于精英中的野心家，他们仍然是父与子的关系，但野心家才是那个父，他用娴熟的手段和敏锐的洞察力，玩弄并利用着群氓。

一个社会，一个民主社会，政客无原则的跪舔民意，纵然危险，也还有救，但当民意跪倒在他们心目中像神一样的政客脚下并充当打手时，这个社会的民主和法治，就已经在悬崖边摇晃，岌岌可危了。

民主社会都如此，更何况一个尚未民主的社会。我们在中国社会能更清晰的观察到这一现象，无论是毛泽东还是薄熙来，当他们调动起群氓的崇拜和力量时，一切自由和法治都荡然无存。

我们这些身在民主国家的人，也不要以为民主是永生不死高枕无忧的。在历史上，它们已经覆灭了太多次。

雅典，罗马共和国……都曾是那个时代的灯塔，结果如何？

光明守护众人，众人亦需守卫光明。

What Is the Most Alarming Signal We Should Be Wary Of?

Translated by ChatGPT

Whether as political observers or activists, the most crucial lesson we should learn from history is not to fear ambitious elites or ignorant, violent mobs individually, but rather the fusion of these two forces: when certain elites and the masses find a place for themselves within each other's projections, forming a peculiar alliance akin to that of a father and son rather than ruler and subject. When such an alliance emerges in a democratic society, it becomes a dangerous signal worth our utmost vigilance—because the next step could very well be the slow death of democracy.

The transformation of Rome from a republic to an empire serves as a prime example. Many believe that it was Julius Caesar and his successor Augustus who ultimately dismantled the Republic. In reality, this process had begun much earlier. A striking instance is the political struggle between Sulla and Marius. After his victory, Sulla became an indefinitely appointed dictator—a position in Rome meant to address emergencies. However, his power did not merely stem from his title but also from the fervent support of the masses. Their fanatical worship of Sulla and their lawless attacks on his opponents ensured that his influence extended through the streets, making his spies and enforcers omnipresent. Under such conditions, no one in the Senate, the military, or the public sphere dared to oppose him.

As for the law? Sulla himself did not directly commit these atrocities; it was the mobs. And mobs, after all, were never known for their lawfulness—why make a fuss over their actions? If things got too extreme, if a noble’s mansion was burned or an official was killed, a few scapegoats could always be found. But by then, the chilling effect had already taken root. Although Sulla, constrained by republican tradition and his own health, later staged a symbolic retirement, he still held supreme power. No one dared to challenge him or his bloodthirsty followers. He never officially claimed the title of emperor—yet in function, how was he any different? Ironically, his defeated rival, Marius, had also attempted to take the same path but ultimately fell short in his understanding of the mob’s psychological needs compared to Sulla.

Julius Caesar and Augustus were simply the heirs to this trajectory. For them, relying on the masses as political enforcers was the most effective strategy. After all, deploying the military came with too many restrictions and excessive attention, whereas mobs could be manipulated at will.

Unlike ordinary hired thugs, the fervor of mobs is genuine, even if money is sometimes involved. This is what distinguishes and surpasses standard populism. In conventional populism, politicians pander to public opinion, and public opinion in turn controls politicians—public opinion is the father, while politicians are the sons. However, a more extreme and dangerous scenario arises when public opinion completely submits to an ambitious elite. The relationship remains that of father and son, but this time, the elite is the father, skillfully manipulating and exploiting the masses with exceptional tact and keen insight.

In a democratic society, when politicians grovel before public opinion without principles, it is dangerous but still salvageable. However, when public opinion kneels at the feet of politicians it worships like gods and even acts as their enforcers, the democracy and rule of law of that society are already teetering on the edge of a cliff.

If this is true for democratic societies, then how much more dire is the situation for a society that has never experienced democracy? In China, we can observe this phenomenon even more clearly. Whether it was Mao Zedong or Bo Xilai, whenever they mobilized the adoration and power of the masses, all freedoms and legal norms were utterly obliterated.

Those of us living in democratic countries should not assume that democracy is immortal and secure. History has already seen it perish too many times.

Athens, the Roman Republic—both were once beacons of their eras. And what became of them?

Light safeguards the people, but the people must also defend the light.