【作者】 杨成；

【导师】 冯绍雷；

【作者基本信息】 华东师范大学 ， 科学社会主义与国际共产主义运动， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 自20世纪90年代初独立以来,俄罗斯经历了一场长达10余年的动荡曲折的转型历程。以2000年左右为界,后共产主义时期的俄罗斯发展历程似乎呈现出两种截然不同的面貌:叶利钦时代的俄罗斯几乎是俄历史上最为暗淡的时期之一,处于深刻危机中的俄罗斯一直在苦苦地寻求如何克服内部混乱、确定一个大国强国的发展之路;而普京则以“乱世用重典”的方式悄然实现了政治可控、经济发展、社会稳定的转变,让俄罗斯“重新崛起”的命题再一次被世人关注。无论是从共时还是历时的视角看,俄目前的相对实力和绝对实力与苏联解体之初相比都有了长足的进展,俄罗斯重新强势地屹立在国际舞台上,成为牵动国际关系格局与大国关系变迁的重要因素。普京治下的俄罗斯为什么能重新崛起?这是横亘千年的“崛起——衰落——重新崛起”的历史逻辑的重演?是植根于俄罗斯民族基因中的一种特殊气质使然?还是基于其他的动力?由于研究范式、理论背景等各种因素的影响,国内外学术界对这一问题并没有统一共识,部分学者甚至对俄罗斯重新崛起本身多有质疑。本论文引入“第二次转型”的理论范畴,解读普京时代俄罗斯的重新崛起,这是国内、国际学术界正在开始展开深入讨论的重要问题。尽管“第二次转型”的学术概念未有定论,但其核心内容是在完成制度转型基本任务的基础上通过新一轮转型克服原有转型的“制度陷阱”,使已经构建的制度从非效率制度均衡向效率制度均衡转变。如果说,叶利钦时代俄罗斯转型的主要目标是政治上要从全能主义体制向自由民主体制转换、经济上要从计划经济体制向市场经济体制递嬗的话,普京时代的俄罗斯转型则呈现出迥异的路径与特征。如果说前者是“第一次转型”,那么后者的主要改革目标与其实说是要从旧体制转轨至新体制,不如说是要克服在叶利钦时代俄罗斯转型进程中形成的一系列“制度陷阱”的“第二次转型”。从这个意义上讲,普京推动的俄罗斯转型越来越多地表现出与叶利钦早期推进的新自由主义导向的体制路径切入相异的方向。在笔者看来,普京式的“第二次转型”包含以下几个要素:第一,从“制度陷阱”到个人施加极大影响的制度重构;第二,从线性过渡到尊重社会发展模式的多样性选择;第三,从新自由主义导向下的简单搬用到在市场经济模式前提下的关注国情筛选:第四,从文化上偏向极端到强调团结和中间主义的路线。本论文有以下主要结论:第一,普京时代俄罗斯政治领域的“第二次转型”集中表现为从“自由主义民主”到“行政主导下的民主”的调整。这是一种迫于形势和处于形成过程之中的民主模式,而非严格意义上的权威主义。俄罗斯具备了民主的基本特征。无论是“主权民主”,还是“可控民主”,都是普京正在引导俄罗斯探索的一条独特的、有本国特色的民主政治道路,其实质是非西方式的自由主义导向的民主,它有可能向更成熟的民主制度递进。第二,普京时代俄罗斯经济领域的“第二次转型”是从“新自由主义”到“私人—国家资本主义”的模式转换。无论是叶利钦还是普京在经济上都不同程度地表现为自由主义的取向。普京经济模式是在自由经济理念和宪政框架内形成的,私人资本和国家资本同时取得了发展,其国家干预还是为私有经济留下了发展空间,同时力图为国家干预找到合理的定位。第三,普京时代俄罗斯“第二次转型”在意识形态领域主要表现为从叶利钦时代的多元竞争到以中派主义为特征的主体意识。叶利钦在意识形态领域未能使俄民众形成和谐共存,而普京则通过引导及“第二次转型”的实际绩效逐渐趋于建立新的主体意识形态。第四,普京时代俄罗斯“第二次转型”在外交领域主要表现为从后帝国外交到超越帝国外交的转变。叶利钦时期,俄罗斯外交更多表现出一种后帝国的特征,即作为一个传统大国,在一个不断受到削弱的空间内,经历着外交的艰难转型,融入国际社会成为其主要目标。普京执政以来的俄罗斯外交从上个世纪90年代开始的战略收缩已经基本结束,在“第二次转型”刺激俄重新崛起的大背景下俄罗斯外交日益强势,出现了以由被动到主动、由韬光守拙到“有眼还眼、有牙还牙”转变为主要内容的重大变化。第五,上述各领域的“第二次转型”促进了俄罗斯的重新崛起。“第二次转型”的阶段性成功使俄恢复了俄在上个世纪90年代一度支离破碎、互不协调的内外政策的完整性。俄现在内外政策并不完美,也许有诸多失误,但这种政策是建立在俄的实际能力和现实利益之上的,而不再以某些幻想和某种情结为基础。第六,“第二次转型”是一个异常复杂的过程,存在着很多风险,其难度不亚于“第一次转型”。普京推动的“第二次转型”的悖论在于,这仍是一种基于“追赶型战略”的模式,并未跳出俄历史进程中从激进到稳健到保守的变迁路径。它在促进俄加速发展的同时,也埋下了俄崛起受阻的因子。对于21世纪的俄罗斯而言,如何找到适合本国国情的最佳发展道路仍是一个关键问题。研究俄罗斯重新崛起的问题有很强的理论和现实意义。一方面,这可丰富转型理论,以俄罗斯为鉴探讨一些重大理论问题,如制度建设和大国崛起问题、经济持续增长后的社会和谐发展问题、政治集中化背景下的经济可持续发展问题、国际政治中心从西方向东方位移的前景问题;另一方面,俄的发展模式和重新崛起的前景,不仅影响着国际形势的宏观走向,更对中国的国家利益有着巨大影响。研究二者之间的关联性问题将为我国开展对俄工作提供新的视角、思路和政策咨询。更多还原

【Abstract】 Since the independence in the early 1990s, Russia has experienced a devious and roily period of transition for up to 10 years. After 2000, the development of post-communism Russia seems to present two different visages: in Yeltsin’s era, Russia suffered almost one of the dimmest periods in its history. Confronted with the profound crisis, Russia always tried to find out how to conquer its interior confusions and how to identify ways to become a great power; but after Putin came into power, who believed in ’using strict law in troubled times’, he changed Russia into a politically controlled, economically developed and socially steadied country, and drew the whole world’s attention to Russia’s re-rising again. Either from the up-to-date perspective or from the historical perspective, the comparative power and absolute power of today’s Russia have enjoyed great development in comparison with the beginning of its independence. Russia has returned to the international arena and become an important factor affecting international situation and the relations of great powers.Why can Russia in Putin’s era rise again? Is it a replay of the historical logic-’rising- declining-re-rising’ which lasts thousands of years? Or does it result from a special habitude of Russian gene? Or something else? Because of different study models, theoretical backgrounds and so on, researchers inside and outside our country haven’t achieved accordant ideas about this issue. Some scholars even oppugn Russia’s re-rising.This thesis explains Russia’s re-rising in Putin’s era from the perspective of ’the second transition’. This is an issue which is being deeply studied in both domestic and international academic world.The academic definition of ’the second transition’ is still undecided, but the core of this theory is making the constructed system more efficient through a new round of transition on the basis of accomplishing key tasks of institutional transition.If the main targets of Russia’s transition in Yeltsin’s era can be said as changing an almighty creed system into a liberal and democratic system politically as well as changing planned economy into market economy economically, the transition of Russia in Putin’s era presents an absolutely different route and characteristic. If the former can be called as ’the first transition’, the latter then is ’the second transition’ with main reform targets of conquering a series of ’systematic traps’ of Yeltsin’s era, rather than changing the old system into a new system. In this sense, Putin’s transition behaves more and more differently in comparison with Yeltsin’s in his early period, which adopted a systematic path oriented by Neoliberalism. The main conclusions of this thesis are as follows:Firstly, in the field of politics, ’the second transition’ in Putin’s era behaves mainly as the transformation from ’liberal democracy’ to ’illiberalism-oriented democracy’. Strictly speaking, this democracy can’t be called as authoritarianism. It is in the process of being developed and its emergence was forced by circumstance. Russia has the basic characteristics of democracy. Both ’sovereignty democracy’ and ’controlled democracy’ are achievements of Putin’s efforts to explore a particular democratic road with Russian characteristics; and its essence is liberalism-oriented democracy in non-western style, which can step into more advanced democracy.Secondly, in the field of economy, ’the second transition’ in Putin’s era behaves mainly as the transformation from ’neo-liberalism’ to ’private-national capitalism’. Both Putin and Yeltsin’s economic attitudes are partly inclined to be liberalism. The formation of Putin’s economic model is based on the idea of liberal economy and constitutional framework. Both private capital and national capital gain great growth. National intervention, whose logical position is being seeked by the model, has left space for private capital’s development.Thirdly, in the field of ideology, ’the second transition’ in Putin’s era behaves mainly as the transformation from pluralistic competition to subjective consciousness marked by neutralism. Russian people were not unified in the field of ideology in Yeltsin’s era. Comparatively, Putin is constructing new subjective consciousness through conductions and actual effects of ’the second transition’.Fourthly, in the field of diplomacy, ’the second transition’ in Putin’s era behaves mainly as the transformation from post-imperialism to supra-imperialism. In Yeltsin’s era, Russia’s diplomacy represented the characteristic of post-imperialism. That is to say, as a traditional great power, Russia was experiencing a rather tough transition period in constantly weakened space. Integration into the international community became the main objective. In Putin’s era, Russia’s strategic contraction in foreign policies, which begun in the 1990s, has almost come to an end. Russia’s diplomacy is becoming more and more powerful against the background of Russia’s re-rising stimulated by ’the second transition’. Great changes have emerged, which mainly include the transformation from passiveness to initiative and from humility to resistance.Fifthly, fields mentioned above have encouraged Russia’s re-rising. Interim success of ’the second transition’ has helped Russia recovering the integrity of its interior policy and diplomatic policy which were breached and inconsistent in the 1990s. Russia’s present interior policy and diplomatic policy are not perfect and have many flaws, but they are founded on the basis of Russia’s real capacities and practical benefits, not on some kind of reveries and affections. Sixthly, ’the second transition’ is a rather complex process and has many risks. It is no less difficult than ’the first transition’. The paradox here is that it is still a model based on the ’catch-up strategy’ and conducted by Russia’s historical transformation route of ’radicalness-steadiness-conservation’. On one hand, ’the second transition’ accelerates Russia’s development, and on the other, it roots factors which will hold up the rising of Russia one day. For Russia in the 21^st century, what’s essential is how to find out the best route for development which best suits its condition .Studying Russia’s re-rising has important theoretical and realistic significance. On one hand, studying this issue can enrich the theory of transition and bring some important theoretical issues into discussion, such as systematic construction and great power’s rising issues, the harmonious development of a society after persistent economic growth, the continuable economic development whose background is political centralization, and the foreground issues of the international political center’s transfer from west to east, and on the other, Russia’s developmental pattern and the prospect of its re-rising have great influences on the general trend of international situation. Moreover, it has tremendous impacts on China’s national interests. Studying the relativity between them will provide a new kind of perspective and thinking method as well as policymaking consultation to China’s diplomatic issues concerning Russia.更多还原