作者：张兴贵

极权主义重视“地面上看得见”的建设，而轻视下水管道等“看不见”的基础设施，其根源在于体制的内在逻辑：表演性政治、合法性生产、权力展示的结合。

一、表演性政治。极权主义本质上是“剧场国家”。汉娜·阿伦特在《极权主义的起源》中指出，这种体制依赖持续制造神话、运动感和集体幻觉来维持统治。地面上宏大的、视觉冲击强的项目——宽阔的林荫大道、巨型广场、纪念碑、高耸的政府大楼、标志性体育场或水电站——完美服务于这一需求。它们是可被观看、可被摄影、可被宣传的“景观”，能瞬间制造“政权强大、领袖英明、事业辉煌”的叙事。相反，下水管道、污水处理系统、地下管网等隐形基础设施，却“沉默无声”。它们无法举办仪式，无法成为背景板，无法转化为宣传口号。它们的功能是长期、分散、预防性的——减少内涝、保障公共卫生、支撑日常民生——却缺乏即时戏剧效果。因此，在资源有限的极权体制下，优先序自然倒向“看得见”的项目，这是政治选择。

二、合法性赤字的替代。极权政权普遍面临深刻的“合法性赤字”：缺乏民主选举的程序合法性，也难以长期依赖真实的经济绩效。于是，它们转向“表演合法性”——通过可见成就制造合法性幻象。宏大地面工程提供即时、可量化的“胜利叙事”：多少公里大道、多少座高楼、多少个“世界第一”。这些数据容易统计、容易上报、容易通过国家媒体转化为“历史性成就”。而地下管网的完善，需要数十年持续投入、专业规划、分散维护，其效益滞后且难以归因于某位领袖或某次运动。故障往往在多年后才爆发，极易被淡化为“自然灾害”。这种偏好形成恶性循环：政权越依赖可见绩效来弥补合法性，就越忽视隐形系统；隐形系统越脆弱，政权就越需要新的地面工程来转移视线、制造新神话。

三、可见即控制，可控即象征。首先，可见建设便于权力展示与威慑。宽阔笔直的大道利于阅兵、群众集会和监控；巨型建筑象征对自然、对历史、对“旧世界”的征服，强化领袖作为“历史推动者”和“救世主”的形象。地下设施则无法承载这种象征重负。其次，它服务于资源集中与控制。极权体制擅长“举国体制办大事”，通过自上而下的动员调动资源。但隐形基础设施需要地方自主、专业判断和持续预算，这与高度集权的决策模式相冲突。资源有限时，必然优先投向能直接服务政权存续、能被中央直接掌控的可见项目。再次，从心理学角度，这是不安全感的补偿。极权领袖和官僚深知权力基础脆弱，依赖恐惧而非共识，因此需要不断通过“看得见的胜利”来强化自我合法性与群众顺从。地面景观成为心理麻醉剂：越是内部矛盾尖锐，越需外部（或视觉）辉煌来掩饰。

四、体制激励的扭曲。极权官僚体系的激励机制进一步放大了这一偏差。官员晋升依赖“政绩工程”——上级看得见、媒体拍得到、能快速出成果的项目。修建下水管道难以“出彩”，维护它更无“亮点”。相比之下，民主或开放治理中，媒体监督、选民压力和专业自治会推动对隐形基础设施的重视。因为民生问题会直接转化为政治问责。而在极权下，民众声音微弱，责任链条模糊，导致“可见优先、隐形拖延”的结构性选择。

极权主义重视地面景观、轻视地下管网是权力哲学问题。真正的文明治理，从不追求舞台上的永恒高潮，而是致力于让每一位公民在日常中活得安全、有尊严。

编辑：李聪玲 校对：周敏 翻译：戈冰

Totalitarian Phenomenon，Part VIII: Prioritizing “That Which Can Be Seen”

Author: Zhang Xinggui

The totalitarian tendency to prioritize visible above-ground construction while neglecting hidden infrastructure such as drainage systems stems directly from the system’s inner logic: the confluence of performative politics, the production of legitimacy, and the display of power.

I. Performative Politics

Totalitarianism is, at its core, a “theatre state.” As Hannah Arendt noted in The Origins of Totalitarianism, such regimes rely on the continuous manufacturing of myths, a sense of momentum, and collective illusions to sustain their rule. Grand, visually striking above-ground projects—spacious boulevards, giant plazas, monuments, towering government edifices, iconic stadiums, and megastructures like hydroelectric dams—serve this need perfectly. They are “spectacles” to be viewed, photographed, and broadcast, instantaneously crafting a narrative of “a powerful regime, a brilliant leader, and a glorious cause.”

Conversely, invisible infrastructure like drainage pipes, sewage treatment systems, and underground utility networks remains “silent.” These subterranean networks cannot host ceremonial gatherings, serve as backdrops for photOps, or be transformed into propaganda slogans. Their functions are long-term, decentralized, and preventive—mitigating urban flooding, safeguarding public health, and sustaining everyday livelihoods—yet they lack immediate dramatic effect. Consequently, under a resource-constrained totalitarian system, priorities naturally tilt toward “visible” projects as a deliberate political choice.

II. Substitutes for the Legitimacy Deficit

Totalitarian regimes universally confront a profound “legitimacy deficit”: they lack procedural legitimacy derived from democratic elections, and they struggle to rely perpetually on genuine economic performance. Hence, they pivot toward “performative legitimacy”—creating an illusion of legitimacy through high-visibility achievements. Grand above-ground engineering projects supply an immediate, quantifiable “narrative of victory”: how many kilometers of boulevards paved, how many skyscrapers erected, how many “world firsts” achieved.

Such metrics are straightforward to compile, convenient to report to higher authorities, and easily translated into “historic achievements” through state media. Improving underground networks, by contrast, requires decades of sustained investment, technical planning, and decentralized maintenance; its benefits are delayed and hard to attribute to a specific leader or political campaign. Failures often erupt only years down the line, making them easily downplayed or dismissed as mere “natural disasters.” This preference fosters a vicious cycle: the more a regime relies on visible performance to offset its legitimacy deficit, the more it neglects hidden systems; the more fragile these hidden systems become, the more the regime requires fresh above-ground projects to divert attention and manufacture new myths.

III. Visibility Means Control, and Controllability Means Symbolism

First, visible construction facilitates the display and deterrence of power. Wide, straight avenues lend themselves to military parades, mass rallies, and surveillance; gargantuan structures symbolize the conquest of nature, history, and the “old world,” reinforcing the leader’s image as the “engine of history” and a “savior.” Underground infrastructure, by contrast, cannot bear such symbolic weight.

Second, it serves resource concentration and control. Totalitarian regimes excel at mobilizing resources from the top down through the “whole-of-nation system.” Invisible infrastructure, however, requires local autonomy, professional judgment, and sustained budgetary commitments—demands that clash directly with highly centralized decision-making models. When resources are constrained, priority is inevitably given to visible projects that directly serve regime survival and remain under the central authority’s direct control.

Third, from a psychological perspective, this reflects a compensation for deep-seated insecurity. Totalitarian leaders and bureaucrats are acutely aware of the fragility of their power base, which relies on fear rather than consensus. Consequently, they must constantly rely on “visible victories” to reinforce self-legitimacy and compel mass obedience. Above-ground spectacles become a psychological narcotic: the sharper internal contradictions grow, the greater the need for external (or visual) grandeur to mask them.

IV. Distortion of Systemic Incentives

The incentive structure within totalitarian bureaucracies further amplifies this bias. Official promotion depends on “vanity and trophy projects”—initiatives that are visible to superiors, capture well on camera, and deliver rapid, tangible results. Building drainage pipes rarely offers opportunities to “shine,” and maintaining them yields even fewer “highlights.”

By contrast, under democratic or open governance, media scrutiny, voter pressure, and professional autonomy push hidden infrastructure to the forefront, as livelihood issues translate directly into political accountability. Under totalitarianism, however, the voice of the populace is muted and the chain of accountability remains blurred, leading to a structural choice that prioritizes the visible while deferring the invisible.

The totalitarian tendency to prioritize above-ground spectacles over subterranean networks is fundamentally a question of power philosophy. Genuine civil governance never pursues an eternal crescendo on the political stage; rather, it dedicates itself to ensuring that every citizen lives with safety and dignity in their daily lives.

Editor: Li Congling Proofreader: Zhou Min Translator: Ge Bing