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.)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment