王超華：為了人民主權的政治理想——紀念八九“六四”22週年
12 years ago
Sunday, June 17, 2007
ZT: 南方都市报社论：《以国家名义捍卫文明底线》
南方都市报社论：《以国家名义捍卫文明底线》
山西黑砖窑奴役、虐待工人事件，点 燃了举国上下普遍的义愤。昨日，国家主席胡锦涛、总理温家宝及其他国家高层领导相继就此事作出重要批示。截至昨日上午，山西、河南两省通过专项行动，共解 救出了468名黑窑工，目前行动仍在继续。这一数字，从侧面验证了这场灾难的规模。这一场人道的危机，以愤怒的民意推动，正演化成高层意志主导下的政治行 动，要以国家名义，捍卫文明底线。
这些天，我们亲见愤怒在全社会、各阶层燃烧。这人道的愤怒当中，也有敏感的抑郁，也有现实的忧心，还有难言的忌讳，但都无须掩饰。如果这愤怒，仍要克制，仍要掩饰，仍要辩证地指导，要么是社会的底线已经完全失去，要么是社会根本就没有底线。
这些燃烧的愤怒，是社会底线失守的普遍疼痛，是进步幻觉中蓦然惊醒的惶骇——我们以为自己在向文明飞奔的路上，却发现竟是赤膊上阵，羞愧难当。社会尚未剥夺殆尽的羞耻感，是它仍然活着的生命自证。我们不能阻止它感到羞耻和愤怒。
今日的局面，定要有人负责。这不容含糊，也无从商榷。许多人议论，许多人分析，写下各种各样的理据，要为事件找到出路。可是，这不是一道复杂的社会分析题，只是一道简单的文明判断题。那些普遍的愤怒，已经标定底线，也给出答案。
社会创制法律，每一个乱法者都要伏法；公民委托政府，每一个玩忽职守者都必须解职。这是社会恢复秩序、维系信心的基本前提。在这场人道灾难中，无良的黑窑 主、暴虐的包工头、邪恶的拐骗者、凶残的打手，一个也不能宽恕。还有那些官员，散漫的、失职的、贪腐的、丧失责任心的官员，没有理由强奸民意，霸权占位， 必须接受道义的谴责与政治的追惩，以及民众和法律的问责。
可我们的社会显然缺乏信心。甚至，这份无望的压抑，本身就构成今日愤怒的大部分。虽然这无声蔓延的愤怒，并未站定在公共舞台上朗声发言。可如果这澎湃的愤怒，仍要领受虚词和周旋，仍要观看敷衍和推脱，我们的政治恐怕会变成闹剧。
我们努力呈现这压抑而扭曲的愤怒，只因感念社会前进全赖真实。尽管这真实，常常令人不悦。今天的事实，是只有政治高层确认的愤怒，才可以成为驱魔降妖 的真实的愤怒。那么多失子家庭的父母悲呼，他们目睹暴行，直击残酷，他们的忍耐近乎悲壮。那么多民众同心呼应，他们痛斥践踏人权的恶人，更厌恨辜负民意的 官员，他们的忍耐同样近乎悲壮。这种忍耐，本能地在渴望一种起码的政治尊重。现实需要回答他们，他们的忍耐是因为坚信，坚信这个制度仍在不遗余力地修复， 修复他们因愤怒而塌陷的信心。
在国家与公众之间，我们需要重申一些常识。个人之恶，从来就不曾消亡。国家之善，即在于以公共名义，遏制个人之恶。不得不承认，黑砖窑累积的罪恶，最 刺人耳目的，并非个人之恶的极度暴虐。而是那些接受公民委托，担当保护之责的官员，如何背信弃义，如何临阵脱逃，如何自私自利，将垄断的公权败坏成公民权 利的惨剧。
为骇人的山西黑砖窑写下结语，只能是个人之恶所叠加的公器之恶。为恶毒的人性，我们只留一声悲叹，为反噬其主的公器，却要喊出大声的愤怒。检讨人性，这是每时每刻的个人修为；检讨公器，却是此时此刻全社会必须要做的工作。
那么多小心翼翼的愤怒，喧腾躁动，他们在彼此交谈，彼此相识。这愤怒必须被听到，必须被理解。在今日的公共生活中，它在等待来自政治的确认和回馈。民 愤，以及平民愤，逐渐成为今日中国的政治游戏原则。愤怒，就此成为道义的武器，为民众参与，找到一条委婉的路线。也许要说，不幸的是，我们只有愤怒；也许 要说，幸运的是，我们仍有愤怒。
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Remembering Chinese blood shed for democracy
WANG CHAOHUA
Chinese Communist Party officials on several occasions this year have publicly broached the topic of democratic reform, at long last. It seems that time, and repeated lies, have created enough barriers to stop the public from relating the word "democracy" to the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989.
However, the confrontation between the peaceful demonstrators and the army's machine guns and tanks left a huge question in history: What was the conviction that led those demonstrators to confront the military machines? Explanations such as the "impulsiveness" of youth cannot account for those striking scenes that shocked the world. I have always understood their courage to come from the power of a mass movement toward democracy.
Looking back at the widespread participation and the way people were mobilized in 1989, we recall that the marchers paraded in the streets in the middle of the day, carrying the banners of their schools or workplaces, as if the banners made their actions more righteous. Under the social circumstances of the time, the intent of the demonstrators was to participate in a patriotic movement toward democracy, not to overthrow the government. Only by realizing this point can we understand why, throughout the month-long demonstrations, the people demonstrated such strong self-discipline. This did not come from fear of government revenge. Instead it suggested a strong feeling of pride in challenging government suppression. The key point was the widespread participation, which is what democracy relies on.
When night fell, the people who went out to the streets represented only themselves. They did so of their own free will, and many confronted government officials face-to-face. This shows that, although the students' strategy was to stir the sympathy of the people, the force that mobilized the masses went far beyond mere expressions of sympathy and support. Sympathy was just superficial; whether it was the April 27th incident (when students protested the state media's depiction of the movement), the martial law order, or the gunshots on the night of June 3rd, the largest scale participation always occurred in direct opposition to the government's tough measures.
We might say that the 1989 incident was quite similar to today's campaigns to defend the people's rights. The deprivation or denial of a citizen's rights is the most effective motivator, and the real foundation of mobilization is the hope of democracy. Most victims in the June 4th incident were acting as individual, ordinary citizens. They were sacrificed at the fatal place at the fatal time only because they couldn't accept the ruling authority's violence toward the practice of their civil rights.
Commemorating the June 4th incident and returning political power to the people can never be separated. We can say without any doubt that the victims of the June 4th events shed their blood and died in the pursuit of democracy.
Those unwilling to face the democratic nature of the movement, or who intentionally wish to cover it up, always avoid examining the intentions of the citizens who were involved at the time. They just look at the students and criticize them by picking out certain details. They argue that if the students had obtained power they would have exerted a stronger dictatorship than the Communist Party. This argument is completely unfounded.
During the democratic movement, the students were pursuing political participation. They were not asking for sympathy, coercing the government or usurping authority. Although they lacked practical experience, due to a prolonged ban on non-governmental organizations, the students did experience a certain amount of openness and reflection in the 1980s. Ideas of democratic reform had been widely spread by physicist and professor Fang Lizhi and others.
Less than one week after the death of the reformist Communist Party leader Hu Yaobang, those who gathered to mourn him began uniting into independent organizations. As soon as one active individual initiated a group, many students followed. Every school had such student representatives, who used their real names rather than hiding behind pseudonyms, which was a great difference from previous student movements. Besides, up until the final phase of the movement, including the clean-up in Tiananmen Square, the student leaders still made their decisions by voting, which shows the democratic character of the movement.
If we consider that the students' organizations were the voluntary leaders of the mass movement at that time, they had to take into account the views of the masses. They had no intention of extending their authority beyond the principles of democracy. In fact, we can resolutely say that if the government had fallen, the students would surely not have established an autocracy or dictatorship. Instead, they would have asked people from all walks of life to elect new authorities to share the heavy burden of governance, which they could hardly carry.
Nowadays there are many discussions and discourses on democracy within China. Especially in recent times, these have become more and more confusing. The major problem lies in the fact that the fundamental meaning and function of democracy has been made ambiguous.
In my opinion, the word "republic" emphasizes a voluntary unity among citizens, whereas "democratic" stresses the political procedures to be followed after unity is established. China had abolished an imperial system before the People's Republic of China was established. Only by first admitting the concept of a republic can we make it democratic, and only by realizing the spirit of democracy can we guarantee the original spirit of a republic. Instead of contradicting each other, the two complement each other, and both emphasize the equal political status and right to political participation of the citizens.
In this sense, there is a great distance between real democracy and the current political situation in China. This is the root cause of the emerging social conflicts and confrontation. If the Communist Party does not open the channel of democracy, the conflicts between people will never end, especially those between local people and the central groups that are the beneficiaries of the current system.
Democracy is a good thing and it is what the students paid for by shedding their blood and losing their lives in order to protect their civil rights in 1989. At this moment, as we commemorate the 18th anniversary of the June 4th incident, I look forward to the time when every Chinese citizen can practice his or her right to participate in democratic elections and political decision-making.
--
(Ms. Wang Chaohua was a leader of the democratic movement of 1989, when she was a graduate student and lecturer at the Beijing Academy of Social Sciences. She left China after the June 4th incident and pursued her master's degree in history at the University of California. She is currently a PhD candidate of Chinese contemporary literature at the University of California in Los Angeles. This article is translated and edited from the Chinese. The original was published in "Trends" magazine and can be found at www.ncn.org. ©Copyright Wang Chaohua.)
However, the confrontation between the peaceful demonstrators and the army's machine guns and tanks left a huge question in history: What was the conviction that led those demonstrators to confront the military machines? Explanations such as the "impulsiveness" of youth cannot account for those striking scenes that shocked the world. I have always understood their courage to come from the power of a mass movement toward democracy.
Looking back at the widespread participation and the way people were mobilized in 1989, we recall that the marchers paraded in the streets in the middle of the day, carrying the banners of their schools or workplaces, as if the banners made their actions more righteous. Under the social circumstances of the time, the intent of the demonstrators was to participate in a patriotic movement toward democracy, not to overthrow the government. Only by realizing this point can we understand why, throughout the month-long demonstrations, the people demonstrated such strong self-discipline. This did not come from fear of government revenge. Instead it suggested a strong feeling of pride in challenging government suppression. The key point was the widespread participation, which is what democracy relies on.
When night fell, the people who went out to the streets represented only themselves. They did so of their own free will, and many confronted government officials face-to-face. This shows that, although the students' strategy was to stir the sympathy of the people, the force that mobilized the masses went far beyond mere expressions of sympathy and support. Sympathy was just superficial; whether it was the April 27th incident (when students protested the state media's depiction of the movement), the martial law order, or the gunshots on the night of June 3rd, the largest scale participation always occurred in direct opposition to the government's tough measures.
We might say that the 1989 incident was quite similar to today's campaigns to defend the people's rights. The deprivation or denial of a citizen's rights is the most effective motivator, and the real foundation of mobilization is the hope of democracy. Most victims in the June 4th incident were acting as individual, ordinary citizens. They were sacrificed at the fatal place at the fatal time only because they couldn't accept the ruling authority's violence toward the practice of their civil rights.
Commemorating the June 4th incident and returning political power to the people can never be separated. We can say without any doubt that the victims of the June 4th events shed their blood and died in the pursuit of democracy.
Those unwilling to face the democratic nature of the movement, or who intentionally wish to cover it up, always avoid examining the intentions of the citizens who were involved at the time. They just look at the students and criticize them by picking out certain details. They argue that if the students had obtained power they would have exerted a stronger dictatorship than the Communist Party. This argument is completely unfounded.
During the democratic movement, the students were pursuing political participation. They were not asking for sympathy, coercing the government or usurping authority. Although they lacked practical experience, due to a prolonged ban on non-governmental organizations, the students did experience a certain amount of openness and reflection in the 1980s. Ideas of democratic reform had been widely spread by physicist and professor Fang Lizhi and others.
Less than one week after the death of the reformist Communist Party leader Hu Yaobang, those who gathered to mourn him began uniting into independent organizations. As soon as one active individual initiated a group, many students followed. Every school had such student representatives, who used their real names rather than hiding behind pseudonyms, which was a great difference from previous student movements. Besides, up until the final phase of the movement, including the clean-up in Tiananmen Square, the student leaders still made their decisions by voting, which shows the democratic character of the movement.
If we consider that the students' organizations were the voluntary leaders of the mass movement at that time, they had to take into account the views of the masses. They had no intention of extending their authority beyond the principles of democracy. In fact, we can resolutely say that if the government had fallen, the students would surely not have established an autocracy or dictatorship. Instead, they would have asked people from all walks of life to elect new authorities to share the heavy burden of governance, which they could hardly carry.
Nowadays there are many discussions and discourses on democracy within China. Especially in recent times, these have become more and more confusing. The major problem lies in the fact that the fundamental meaning and function of democracy has been made ambiguous.
In my opinion, the word "republic" emphasizes a voluntary unity among citizens, whereas "democratic" stresses the political procedures to be followed after unity is established. China had abolished an imperial system before the People's Republic of China was established. Only by first admitting the concept of a republic can we make it democratic, and only by realizing the spirit of democracy can we guarantee the original spirit of a republic. Instead of contradicting each other, the two complement each other, and both emphasize the equal political status and right to political participation of the citizens.
In this sense, there is a great distance between real democracy and the current political situation in China. This is the root cause of the emerging social conflicts and confrontation. If the Communist Party does not open the channel of democracy, the conflicts between people will never end, especially those between local people and the central groups that are the beneficiaries of the current system.
Democracy is a good thing and it is what the students paid for by shedding their blood and losing their lives in order to protect their civil rights in 1989. At this moment, as we commemorate the 18th anniversary of the June 4th incident, I look forward to the time when every Chinese citizen can practice his or her right to participate in democratic elections and political decision-making.
--
(Ms. Wang Chaohua was a leader of the democratic movement of 1989, when she was a graduate student and lecturer at the Beijing Academy of Social Sciences. She left China after the June 4th incident and pursued her master's degree in history at the University of California. She is currently a PhD candidate of Chinese contemporary literature at the University of California in Los Angeles. This article is translated and edited from the Chinese. The original was published in "Trends" magazine and can be found at www.ncn.org. ©Copyright Wang Chaohua.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
