这一问题甚至引发中国政治精英的广泛关注。最近网上有文章说中共高层有不少人在阅读托克维尔（Alexis de Tocqueville）的《旧制度与大革命》（L'Ancien regime et la Revolution），幷说王岐山看完此书后曾担忧地表示：中国的现代化转型不会那么顺利；中国人自己的代价也没有付够。当然，革命一旦发生，人民将付出的代价在一定程度上是由革命性质决定。一般来说，政治革命（一场只改变政权的性质，而不改变社会经济结构的革命）给社会带来的震荡要远远低于社会革命（一场既改变政权的性质，又改变社会经济结构的革命），非暴力革命给社会带来的震荡要远远低于暴力革命。王岐山也许是在担心中国会发生一场暴力革命，甚至是暴力性的社会革命。
一般来说，世俗意识形态对大众所作的承诺比较容易被验证。一旦当国家不能兑现那些承诺，就会产生合法性危机。从这个意义上来说，世俗意识形态也不是一个稳定的合法性基础。但是如果我们把世俗意识形态进一步细分，就会发觉不同的意识形态对人性有不同的要求和对民众有不同的许诺。一般来说，要是一种意识形态对人性的要求愈接近于人的本性幷且其许诺愈不容易被证伪，这一意识形态就愈能为国家的合法性提供一个可靠的基础。比如美国建立在个人主义基础上的“机会之地”（Land of Opportunity）这一意识形态，不但与人的竞争和趋利本性十分接近，而且很难被证伪。这一意识形态有着人们所说的“钱币落在正面我赢，落在反面你输”（heads I win, tails you lose）的性质：你的成功证明了这意识形态的正确性，而你没有成功很容易被解释为是你没有付出足够或恰当的努力。与之相比较，“共产主义”这一意识形态就很难为一个政权提供稳定的合法性基础。共产主义意识形态不但建立在一个过于理想的人性的基础之上，幷且承诺提供一个比其他社会制度更为完美的世俗世界，例如“各尽所能、按需分配”之类。如果一个国家把共产主义意识形态作为合法性基础，一旦国家不能兑现相应的承诺，民众马上就会产生“信仰危机”，从而给国家带来合法性危机。
1 Samuel P. Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1968); William Kornhauser, The Politics of Mass Society (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1959); Eric R. Wolf, “Peasant Rebellion and Revolution”, in National Liberation: Revolution in the Third World, ed. Norman Miller and Roderick Aya (New York: Free Press, 1971), 48-67.
2 Barrington Moore, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World (Boston: Beacon Press, 1966); Jeffrey M. Paige, Agrarian Revolution: Social Movements and Export Agriculture in the Underdeveloped World (New York: Free Press, 1975).
3 Jeff Goodwin, No Other Way Out: States and Revolutionary Movements, 1945-1991 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001); Tim McDaniel, Autocracy, Capitalism, and Revolution in Russia (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1988); Autocracy, Modernization, and Revolution in Russia and Iran (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991); Theda Skocpol, States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979); Timothy P. Wickham-Crowley, Guerrillas and Revolution in Latin America: A Comparative Study of Insurgents and Regimes since 1956 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992).
4、5 Jeff Goodwin and Theda Skocpol, “Explaining Revolutions in the Contemporary Third World”, Politics and Society 17, no. 4 (1989): 489-509.
6 Dingxin Zhao, “State Legitimacy, State Policy, and the Development of the 1989 Beijing Student Movement”, Asian Perspective 23, no. 2 (1999): 245-84; “State-Society Relations and the Discourses and Activities of the 1989 Beijing Student Movement”, American Journal of Sociology 105, no. 6 (2000): 1592-632.
7 Dingxin Zhao, The Power of Tiananmen: State-Society Relations and the 1989 Beijing Student Movement (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001); “The Mandate of Heaven and Performance Legitimation in Historical and Contemporary China”, American Behavioral Scientist 53, no. 3 (2009): 416-33.
8 赵鼎新：〈民主的生命力、局限与中国的出路〉，《领导者》，2007年第18期，页76-86。
9 Jie Chen, Popular Political Support in Urban China (Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press; Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2004); Bruce Gilley, “Legitimacy and Institutional Change: The Case of China”, Comparative Political Studies 41, no. 3 (2008): 259-84; Lianjiang Li, “Political Trust in Rural China”, Modern China 30, no. 2 (2004): 228-58; Tianjian Shi, “Cultural Values and Political Trust: A Comparison of the People's Republic of China and Taiwan”, Comparative Politics 33, no. 4 (2001): 401-19; Wenfang Tang, Public Opinion and Political Change in China (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2005).