围绕贝淡宁贤能政治观的争议热潮本已过去，贝淡宁及其合作者曾针对学术界的评议做出过多次回应、解释，但其中关涉的合法性论证无力、尚贤与民主的关系等问题，在理论与实践中并未得到最终解决。近期，李东阳和贝淡宁“再论贤能政治”，将关于贤能政治的讨论引向伦理关系叙事，在重申了“贤能”的多重叙事方式与“贤能”话语的历史语境的同时，更加明确地主张尚贤与民主的融合。从贝淡宁贤能政治观的原初建构及其后贝淡宁等人对贤能政治的补充、修正来看，贤能政治的合法性及其在不同文化和制度背景下的适用性，仍然是贤能政治从理论到实践能否确证的关键。对于“好的政府”，“尚贤 + 民主”是基本内核，此外还要有一些其他的制约因素，以最终形成“尚贤 + 民主 + X”模式，可以姑且称之为“贤能民主”模式。

贤能政治, 尚贤制, 民主, 贝淡宁, 好的政府

The controversy surrounding Daniel A. Bell’s view on political meritocracy has long passed, and Bell and his co-authors have responded and explained to the academic evaluation, but the lack of legitimacy confirmation and the relationship between meritocracy and democracy have not been ultimately resolved in theory and practice. Recently, Li Dongyang and Bell’s paper “Further Discussion on the Political meritocracy” has led the discussion of political meritocracy towards the narrative of ethical relationships, and clearly advocated the integration of meritocracy and democracy while reiterating the multiple narrative of meritocracy and the historical context of the discourse of meritocracy. From the original construction of political meritocracy and the subsequent supplementation and revision of political meritocracy by Bell and other scholars, the legitimacy of political meritocracy and its applicability in different cultural and institutional backgrounds remain the key to whether political meritocracy can be confirmed from theory to practice. 

political meritocracy, meritocracy, democracy, Daniel A. Bell, a good government