Wei Jingsheng Foundation News and Article Release Issue: A535-W310

魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号: A535-W310


Release Date: April 3, 2010



Topic: The Way Out for China (Part IV) -- Wei Jingsheng

标题: 《中国的出路》之四 -- 魏京生


Original Language Version: Chinese (Chinese version at the end)



Note: Please use "Simplified Chinese (GB2312)" encoding to view the Chinese parts of this release.  If this mail does not display properly in your email program, please send your request for special delivery to us or visit:

http://www.weijingsheng.org/report/report2010/report2010-04/WeiJS100403ChinaWayOut4A535-W310.htm which contains identical information.




The Way Out for China, Part IV

-- Wei Jingsheng



The key condition for democracy is to have opposition parties and allow opposition forces.  To realize a dictatorship from democracy, one must eliminate opposition.  The reality after this elimination is dictatorship.  To systematize the dictatorship is autocracy.


A few years ago, a group of hired intellectuals preached loudly that the Chinese Communist Party had systematized its successors, and so established "democracy".  This talk itself illustrates that they do not know what democracy is, and even do not know what autocracy is.  Any political system has a system to pick its successors.  "The son of the emperor should be an emperor" was the system for older days in China.  But that has nothing to do with democracy.


Democracy also has its system for changing the shift and choosing the successor:  elections.  All the political systems have their own ways to pick up the best and most capable ones for themselves, except using different scopes of selection and election.  There are people who think that there is no election and there is no official discussion of the business in an autocratic system.  That is totally wrong.  Nowadays we Chinese like to watch dramas about the old dynasties.  There you could watch the old system of selection and election of the leaders at work.  The emperors' "attending imperial court session in the early mornings" was a system of "official discussion of the business".  The common folk often say: "So and so makes the decision."  That prerequisite was a policy-making system of "we all can discuss it, but then there is someone who will make the policy."


In the old dynasties, it was the emperors who made the policies.  That is the same system as the Communist Party's Deng XiaoPing and Mao Zedong making the policies.  That is autocracy.


So which kind of system is democracy?  That is when the common people replace emperors and Mao Zedong, and make the policies themselves.  But the common people's opinion widely varies, so it would be hard to make policy directly.  Within a clan or a village, it might be possible to exercise the most original democracy by having town meetings to vote for resolutions.  However, for a larger scale, we will have to have a system of representatives.  Then, each village elects their trustworthy representatives for a higher-level organization of the leaders and representatives.  Even so, certain policies can be brought before the people as ballot initiatives or propositions.  Sometimes, the leaders are chosen as result of the election of parliament members, and sometimes these are separated.  The election of the president is separate from the elections of representatives of districts in the USA.  That is because the needed qualifications are not quite the same.


The needed qualities for a President, a Governor and a Congressional member are different.  The most reasonable system is to choose different persons to bear different duties and have different powers.  This is the decentralization of the power that people offer refer to.  Keeping legislation, the judiciary, and administration separate to serve their own functions results in the best operation of the society.  This is the fundamental reason why the democratic system is more reasonable than autocracy.


However, a principle of autocratic systems is not totally without reason.  That principle is often referred as "efficiency first" or "security first".  Then one gives all the powers to the best person in an expectation of the most efficiency and most reliability.  Unfortunately, the experience we get from history proves this to be a wrong assumption; a classic perfectionism assumption.  There is no person who is excellent on all the aspects, but there are people who are the best in some of the aspects.


Some people treat the others and the world with a fair and tolerant mind, and are less likely to be prejudiced.  They are quite suitable to be judges.  But they might lack the creativity of odd thoughts, and capacity of command and control, and acting according to the circumstance.  When this kind of person has all the power, he might not wrongfully treat the others, but might have difficulty to accomplish much.  The whole society may have less wronged cases overall, but mistakes in the other areas will have bad consequences.  Some people are more capable of speech and discussion with open minds.  They are most suitable to discuss business and provide the best opinions.  However, they might not be as fair as the judges, thus not as ideal to be a judge.  This kind of person might not be as good at mobilizing and controlling people, and actually carrying out decisions.  Some people might not be the best to be judges and legislators, but are capable of taking command and control, and could act according to the circumstances.  They are more suitable to be presidents.


Since the expansion of the human society, people have chosen many different systems to improve political efficiency.  In the eras of strong competition and mutual massacre, obviously the power of administration is the most important, and action will decide if a group of people will survive or not.  To this date, the Chinese Communist Party still emphasizes the "rights of survival" to prove its importance, uses "patriotism" to overcome all the other important factors.  If immediate threats are not present, an autocratic system will create them.  Thus is the nature of autocracy.  However, when there is a concentration of the power, it naturally results the concentration of the interests.  Although this may be an advantage in the competition with other countries, for sure it will lose its balance within its own society and ignore the rights and interests of the majority, and thus produce instability to the society.


A political system cannot only be concerned with the need of one aspect.  It must be concerned with the needs of all aspects.  If one only cares about the importance of the administrative power, an autocracy would be the natural system.  But when dissension and discord are in the minds of the majority, the administrative efficiency will progressively decrease.  Thus, an imaginary concentration of power leads to a slackening of popular feeling.  The ultimate result is low efficiency, and then competitive loss against a more reasonable, inclusive, social system.  This is the main reason why modern democratic systems gradually have been defeating autocratic systems.


The reason that the modern democratic system is more reasonable is due to a balance of the interests and separation of the powers as the characteristic of its superstructure.  Notice here we are not talking about decentralizing the power, but a separation of the power with limits, each performing its own functions.  Some scholars think that decentralization is good and that decentralization is democracy.  This is a totally wrong muddled concept.  As a matter of fact, the power of the USA and Western democratic countries is even more concentrated than that of the Chinese Communist Party.   Some of its strict enforcement of the orders is no less than military.  However, its power is concentrated in the several highest organs, each performing its own function with mutual checks and balances.  This is the best system which is most reasonable and less likely to make mistakes.



To hear Mr. Wei Jingsheng's commentary, please visit:



(Written and recorded on March 19, 2010.  Broadcasted by Radio Free Asia.)



This is a message from WeiJingSheng.org


The Wei Jingsheng Foundation and the Overseas Chinese Democracy Coalition are dedicated to the promotion of human rights and democratization in China.  We appreciate your assistance and help in any means.  We pledge solidarity to all who struggle for human rights and democratic governance on this planet. 


You are welcome to use or distribute this release.  However, please credit with this foundation and its website at: www.weijingsheng.org


Although we are unable to afford to pay royalty fees at this time, we are seeking your contribution as well.  You may send your articles, comments and opinions to: HCP@weijingsheng.org.  Please remember, only in text files, not in attachments.


For website issues and suggestions, you may contact our professional staff and web master at: webmaster@Weijingsheng.org


To find out more about us, please also visit our websites at:

www.WeiJingSheng.org and www.ChinaLaborUnion.org

for news and information for Overseas Chinese Democracy Coalition and human rights and democracy movement as whole, especially our Chinese Labor Union Base.


You may contact Ciping Huang at: HCP@Weijingsheng.org or

Wei Jingsheng Foundation office at: 1-202-543-1538 Fax: 1-202-543-1539


Wei Jingsheng Foundation's postal address is:

Wei Jingsheng Foundation, P. O. Box 15449, Washington, DC 20003, USA


You are receiving this message because you had previous shown your interest in learning more about Mr. Wei Jingsheng and the Chinese Democratic Movement.  To be removed from the list, simply reply this message and use "unsubscribe" as the Subject.  Please allow us a few days to process your request.





Wei Jingsheng Foundation News and Article Release Issue: A535-W310

魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号: A535-W310


Release Date: April 3, 2010



Topic: The Way Out for China (Part IV) -- Wei Jingsheng

标题: 《中国的出路》之四 -- 魏京生


Original Language Version: Chinese (Chinese version at the end)









-- 魏京生







民主也有交接班和继承制度,这就是选举制度。所有的政治制度都有选贤任能的制度。只是选择和推举的范围不同。有人以为专制制度就是没有选举也没有议事制度。 这就大错特错了。现在大家常看的辫子戏,里边明明就有选择和推举领袖的制度;每天的早朝不就是议事的制度吗?老百姓常说的“谁谁谁说了算”,前提就是大家都可以说,然后有一个说了算的决策制度。












自从人类社会越来越扩大以来,人们选择了各种各样的制度来提高政治效率。在竞争激烈互相残杀的时代,显然行政权最重要。它决定了这一群人能不能生存下去。到今天共产党还是以强调生存权来证明它的重要性;还是以爱国主义来压倒其它的重要性。 这是由专制制度的本质所决定的。但是权力的集中必然造成利益的集中。虽然在和其他国家的竞争中更加有力,但在社会内部必然失去平衡。其必然忽视大多数人的权利和利益,造成社会的不稳定。

















欢迎投稿(暂无稿费)或批评建议,请寄信箱:  HCP@WEIJINGSHENG.ORG



Wei Jingsheng Foundation, P. O. Box 15449, Washington, DC 20003, USA

电话: 1-202-543-1538 传真:1-202-543-1539






倘若阁下希望不再收到类似信息,请回复本信并用 unsubscribe 作为主题(Subject)。