我們最需要警惕的訊號是什麼？

我們最需要警惕的訊號是什麼？無論是政治觀察者還是政治活動家，當我們從歷史中汲取教訓時，最應當警惕的，既不是富有野心的精英，也不是愚昧暴戾的群氓，而是這二者的結合：個別精英與多數群氓在各自的投影中找到了棲身之所，形成了某種超越君臣類似父子的奇特聯盟。當這一聯盟出現在民主社會時，就是一個值得警惕的危險訊號，因為有可能下一步，就是民主的慢性死亡。

羅馬從共和國向帝制的蛻變，就是一個範例。許多人以為覆滅共和的那個人是凱撒及其後繼者屋大維。其實，這一程序早就開始了。比較明顯的例子就是蘇拉與馬略的政治鬥爭。勝利的蘇拉成為無限期執政的獨裁官（羅馬應對緊急狀態的一種官職），而蘇拉的權力，不僅在於職位，也在於群氓，他們對蘇拉的瘋狂崇拜，對蘇拉政敵無法無天的攻擊，讓蘇拉的耳目與利刃遍佈大街小巷……這讓無論是輿論場，元老院，還是軍隊，都無人敢挺身對抗。至於法律？蘇拉並未違法幹那些勾當，都是群氓乾的，群氓嘛，本就不是守法良民，何須大驚小怪，萬一搞得過火，燒了某位貴族的府邸，殺了某位官員，找幾個頂罪的就是，但寒蟬效應已然形成。雖然蘇拉礙於共和傳統和健康原因，最後裝模作樣的退休，但仍大權在握，無人敢反抗他與他那些殺氣騰騰的群氓，雖未稱帝，與帝何異？諷刺的是，被他打敗的對手馬略，其實也想走這條路子，但在洞悉群氓的心理需求上，終還是差了蘇拉一籌。

凱撒和屋大維，其實也不過是這條路的繼承者。對他們來說，很多時候，群氓充當政治打手是最得心應手的，畢竟出動軍隊限制太多動靜太大，不像群氓般如臂指使。

與普通的僱傭打手相比，雖然錢也是需要的，但群氓的崇拜，卻一定有著真實的狂熱。這是區別和超越一般民粹政治的特徵。普通的民粹政治，更多的是政客迎合民意，民意裹挾政客，民意是父，政客是子。而比之更進一步也更危險的是，民意已完全屈服於精英中的野心家，他們仍然是父與子的關係，但野心家才是那個父，他用嫻熟的手段和敏銳的洞察力，玩弄並利用著群氓。

一個社會，一個民主社會，政客無原則的跪舔民意，縱然危險，也還有救，但當民意跪倒在他們心目中像神一樣的政客腳下並充當打手時，這個社會的民主和法治，就已經在懸崖邊搖晃，岌岌可危了。

民主社會都如此，更何況一個尚未民主的社會。我們在中國社會能更清晰的觀察到這一現象，無論是毛澤東還是薄熙來，當他們調動起群氓的崇拜和力量時，一切自由和法治都蕩然無存。

我們這些身在民主國家的人，也不要以為民主是永生不死高枕無憂的。在歷史上，它們已經覆滅了太多次。

雅典，羅馬共和國……都曾是那個時代的燈塔，結果如何？

光明守護眾人，眾人亦需守衛光明。

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.