Wei
Jingsheng Foundation News and Article Release Issue: A539-W313
魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号： A539-W313
Release
Date: April 17, 2010
发布日：2010年4月17日
Topic:
The Way Out for China (Part VII) -- Wei Jingsheng
标题： 《中国的出路》之七 -- 魏京生
Original
Language Version: Chinese (Chinese version at the end)
此号以中文为准（英文在前，中文在后）
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/WeiJS100417ChinaWayOut7A539-W313.htm which
contains identical information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The
Way Out for China, Part VII
--
Wei Jingsheng
When
we are talking about forceful revolution, some people cannot help to ask: is it
the same approach as that of the Chinese Communist Party and Mao Zedong? In recent years, the main reason for
being against a forceful revolution by the people is exactly this reason. Then I cannot help to ask back: Is the
American's revolutionary war for independence the same approach as Mao
Zedong? The American War of
Independence created the first modern day democratic republic. Yet, why did the two revolutions in
China in the name of democracy create only dictatorial autocracy? Obviously, there are huge differences
in between.
The
first difference is a difference in fundamental theory. The American Revolutionary War was in
opposition to the repression and exploitation of the colonizing suzerainty, not
the Kingdom of England itself.
This is similar with minor differences to the target of the Chinese
people's revolts in the past two thousand years. The targets of the Chinese style revolts were to change the
dynasty. Specifically, to change
the emperor and reform the system so the people have better lives. However, it did not take many years for
the situation to go back to where it was, or even worse.
For
the past two thousand years, Chinese people have exhausted their minds for
systematic reform. The ancient
degree of bureaucratic rigor surpassed that of modern day Western systems, as
well as modern day Communist systems.
The Chinese Communist Party has "reformed" for 30 years now,
yet it still cannot reach levels that existed in ancient China, except that its
corruption and monopolization of power has way surpassed the older time. This example illustrates that the
problem is not due to whether the system is tight or not. To "perfect" the system is
only a pretext to stall the people.
As a matter of fact, two thousand years ago people of the Han Dynasty
already discovered a rule that when a system was too rigorous, then there would
be too many governmental officials, which would be unfavorable for the common
people. This rule is summarized
as: "Having too many officials will harass the people". This effect was also well described by
British writer and scholar Cyril Northcote Parkinson in his "Parkinson's
Law".
So
how did the Westerners walk away from this weird circle? That is because of a different theory
in establishing political power.
From the beginning of the American Revolution, there was preparation in
ideological theory to build a governmental system that was democratic by the
people instead of democratic by the aristocrats, not to mention a system of
autocracy.
Superficially,
the American democracy evolved from the British-style democratic system ruled
by the aristocrats. Yet, in
essence, it already had a root difference from that British democracy. That is, its source of power is not
endowed by the aristocrats or inherited, but by the people periodically. It is directly from the people. The country is no more the private
property of the kings and nobles, but a public property of the people in the
country. From the ideology, people
do not have the concept that the government is a private property; instead, the
political power and the government are thought to be the public property of all
the people. The president replaces
the king, the congressional members replace the aristocrats, and the
governmental officials are just employed by the country. The limited power that these officials
hold are endowed and approved by the people.
Some
friends would engender doubt: is not this what the Chinese Communists
said? But why is it that both the
Kuomintang Nationalist Party and the Communist Party all so claimed, yet are
totally different in reality? Not
only in China, but also in many other places in the world that followed the
example in succession after the democratic system revealed its
superiority. However, the majority
of them were unsuccessful, which included Germany, Japan and Italy before World
War II. Reform and democracy were
soon switched to a new form of autocratic system. This kind of system kept the constitution and democratic
process such as elections, yet practiced a new form of autocracy which we the
Chinese call "hanging the lamb's head to sell dog meat". China and the other Communist countries
were in the same situation as well.
Why
would it be so? How did they
bypass the constitution and the election system to make an autocracy in
reality? Why could not the
constitution and elections guarantee the existence of a democratic system?
The
history of China and that of many other countries in the past one hundred years
exactly proves that the constitution and elections are not the guarantee of a
democratic system. A constitution
can be easily shelved, and be violated by laws, regulations and
interpretations. Elections can be
manipulated. People can be easily
cheated and suppressed. After
observing America's democratic existence and process of development, I realized
that there are two most root guarantees of a democratic system. The first is the people's concept of a
government. The second is the
rules for the internal politics.
Going
back in time to observe the reasons for failure of the democratic reforms in
Germany and Japan, as well as other unsuccessful democratic reforms, and how
the former USSR and China proceeded from democratic revolution into a Communist
autocracy, we can discover the common characteristics of all the democratic
reforms reduced to autocracies.
That was to use the people's old ideology of admitting legitimate power
to the kings, and to enhance the idea of privatizing the government by
ideological propaganda. Some is
the fault of the people, who simply want to be taken care of without responsibility.
The
American society more than two hundred years ago was at a time when the concept
of ruling power gradually declined, while a sense of freedom and human rights
was strong. Meanwhile, there were
not political groups propagating the idea of privatizing the government. Having an ocean between the colonies
and the seat of power was not inconsequential. In comparing the various ideologies spreading in America two
hundred years ago with the theory of the Chinese Communist Party's one party
dictatorship, we can discover the important influence that ideologies do for
the direction of the social development.
This is the fundamentally important and decisive influence.
When
most people in the society still recognize the legitimacy of ruling power by
the kings or similarly the ruling power of one-party dictatorship, a ruling
power in a different face will appear.
Simple elections could not guarantee democracy. From the earliest ruling power, to the
modern time Communists and Fascists, they all maintain their dictatorship via
"elections". Only when
the majority of people do not approve this kind of dictatorship, then there is
the possibility for a true democracy to be established.
To
hear Mr. Wei Jingsheng's commentary, please visit:
http://www.weijingsheng.org/RFA/RFA2010/WeiJS100409ChinaWayOut7.mp3
(Written
and recorded on April 9, 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.
*****************************************************************
中文版
Wei
Jingsheng Foundation News and Article Release Issue: A539-W313
魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号： A539-W313
Release
Date: April 17, 2010
发布日：2010年4月17日
Topic:
The Way Out for China (Part VII) -- Wei Jingsheng
标题： 《中国的出路》之七 -- 魏京生
Original
Language Version: Chinese (Chinese version at the end)
此号以中文为准（英文在前，中文在后）
如有中文乱码问题，请与我们联系或访问:
http://www.weijingsheng.org/report/report2010/report2010-04/WeiJS100417ChinaWayOut7A539-W313.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------
《中国的出路》之七
-- 魏京生
说到暴力革命，有些人不禁会问：那不是和共产党、毛泽东的路数一样了吗？近年来反对暴力革命的主要理由也正是这样一种说法。我不禁要反问：难道美国的独立战争也是毛泽东的路数吗？为什么美国的独立战争创造了世界上第一个民主共和国，而中国的两场打着民主旗号的革命，创造的却是独裁专制呢？这里边显然有巨大的区别。
首先的一个区别，就是根本理论的区别。美国的独立战争，目标是反对殖民地宗主国的压迫和剥削。这和中国两千年来人民起义的目标大同小异。中国式的人民起义的目标是改朝换代，说白了就是换换皇帝，改革一下制度，让人民好过一些。但过不了多少年，状况又回到了老样子，甚至更糟。
两千多年来，人们在制度改革上费尽了心机，其严密程度超过了西方现代的制度，也超过了现代共产党的制度。中共改革了三十年，也没有达到中国古代的严密程度。腐败和专权却有过之而无不及。这就说明，问题不是出在制度是否严密上。所谓完善制度的说法，只是搪塞老百姓的一个借口而已。两千年前汉朝人就发现了一个规律，制度太严密官吏就会太多，反而对老百姓不利。总结出这个规律就叫做：官多扰民。这就是近代英国人论证的“官场病”，又叫“帕金森定律”。
那么西方人是怎样走出周而复始的这个怪圈的呢？是建政理论的不同，也就是权力结构的不同，流行的说法是体制的区别。美国革命从一开始就有思想理论的准备，就准备建立一个人民民主的政体，而不是贵族民主的政体，更不是专制的政体。
从表面上看，它是从英国式的贵族民主政体演化而来。实质上，它和英国式的民主已经有了根本的区别，也就是他的权力来源不是贵族群体赋予或继承的，而是人民定期赋予的。它直接来源于人民。国家不再是国王和贵族的私有财产，而是全国人民的公共财产。人们从意识形态上就已经不再接受政府是私有财产的观念，政权和政府被认为是全体人民的公共财产。国王变成了总统；贵族变成了议员，政府则是国家雇用的职员而已。他们所拥有的有限的权势，是人民赋予和认可的。
有的朋友马上产生了疑问：这不是和共产党说的一样吗？可是为什么国民党和共产党都这么说，实际上做出来的完全不一样呢？不但是中国。在民主政体显现出它的优越性之后，世界各国纷纷仿效。可大多数并不成功，包括第二次世界大战前的德国、日本和意大利。维新和民主很快就转轨到了一种新的专制政体。这种政体保留了宪法和选举等民主的程序，实行的却是挂羊头卖狗肉的新型的专制。中国和其他共产党国家都是一样的情况。
为什么会如此呢？他们是怎样绕过了宪法和选举制度，制造出事实上的专制呢？宪法和选举难道还不能保证民主体制的存在吗？
一百多年来中国和很多国家的历史，恰恰证明了宪法和选举都不是民主体制的根本保证。宪法很容易被搁置，被法律、法规和解释权所违背。选举也可以被操纵，人民很容易被欺骗和压制。通过观察美国民主存在和发展的过程，我明白了民主体制最根本的保证有两个：第一是人民对政权的概念；第二就是内部政治的规则。
再回过头来观察德国和日本民主改革失败的原因，包括看看所有不成功的民主改革，和苏联、中国从民主革命走向共产专制的过程就会发现：利用民众意识形态里遵从王权合法性的旧观念，并从意识形态宣传上加强政权私有化的观念，是所有民主改革走向专制的共同特征。
二百多年前的美国社会，恰恰是王权观念渐趋淡薄，自由、人权的意识相当浓厚，而且没有一个宣传政权私有观念的政治团体。把二百年前美国流行的各种意识形态，和共产党的一党专政的理论比较一下，就会非常明显的发现理论对社会发展方向的重大影响。可以说，这是根本性的、决定性的影响。
当社会上大多数人还承认王权或者类似于王权的一党专政的合法性的时候，变着花样的王权就会出现。选举并不能保证民主。从最早的王权到现代的共产党、法西斯，都是通过选举得到和保持专政的。只有多数人民不再认可这种专政的时候，民主才有可能建立起来。
聆听魏京生先生的相关录音，请访问：
http://www.weijingsheng.org/RFA/RFA2010/WeiJS100409ChinaWayOut7.mp3
（撰写并录音于2010年4月9日。自由亚洲电台播出。）
-----------------------------------------------------------------
魏京生基金会及中国民主运动海外联席会议以推动中国的人权与民主为己任。
我们欢迎任何形式的帮助与贡献。我们愿与世界上为人权与民主而奋斗的人们一起努力。
我们希望您能够帮助我们散发我们的资料。但请标明出处与我们的网址：www.weijingsheng.org
欢迎投稿（暂无稿费）或批评建议，请寄信箱： HCP@WEIJINGSHENG.ORG
魏京生基金会通讯地址：
Wei
Jingsheng Foundation, P. O. Box 15449, Washington, DC 20003, USA
电话： 1-202-543-1538 传真：1-202-543-1539
魏京生基金会网址：WWW.weijingsheng.org
中国民主运动海外联席会议及中国团结工会的网址为：www.ChinaLaborUnion.org
阁下之所以收到本信，是因为阁下以前曾表示有兴趣了解魏京生先生和中国民主运动。
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)。