Wei Jingsheng Foundation News and Article: A1637-W1193

魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号：A1637-W1193

Release Date: February 21, 2024

发布日：2024年2月21日

Topic: What Kind of Democracy Is More Suitable for China (Part 1) -- Wei Jingsheng

标题：什么样的民主更适合中国（之一） -- 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/report2024/report2024-2/WeiJS240221onDemocracyinChinaA1637-W1193.htm which contains identical information.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

What Kind of Democracy Is More Suitable for China (Part 1)

-- Wei Jingsheng

The recent elections in Taiwan have caused a big stir in the Chinese-speaking community, and several Western countries such as the United States are also facing upcoming elections. This involves an issue that I have thought about and observed over the years, and is of course also an issue that many friends are concerned about: that is, which kind of democratic system and model China should have in the future is better.

The first is about the political party system. Of course, one-party dictatorship is the worst thing. Not only the one-party dictatorship of Mao Zedong and Xi Jinping is bad, but other one-party dictatorships are equally bad. Even long-term one-party domination, like Japan, is not perfect. According to my observations abroad for many years, a truly democratic system, whether it is a republic or a constitutional monarchy, basically has two models: a two-party system and a multi-party system.

English-speaking countries mostly have two-party systems, which may be because English thinking is more pragmatic. Most people have little interest in a small party that has no chance of being elected. Therefore, most votes go to the party that is probably close to their wishes, in order to have a high probability of achieving some of their wishes.

In European countries, on the contrary, using France as an example, people tend to stick to their own ideas and are less willing to compromise. The inevitable result is scattered votes and the formation of multi-party politics. Don't underestimate small political parties. It is often small parties that control the final results. It may even take a multi-party alliance to gather the votes needed to govern. This situation is emerging in Taiwan.

Many friends will ask: Which model is better? According to my personal observation, there is no better model, but one needs to consider which model is more suitable for one’s own country. I think the Chinese thinking mode is closer to the pragmatic English thinking mode, and it seems that the two-party system is more suitable for the national conditions of China.

But the phenomenon of worship and superstition in Chinese history is even closer to Russian, German and Japanese culture. Not only was the fanaticism displayed during the Cultural Revolution no less than that of Germany during the Nazi period, but the fanaticism of various modern fan groups (including those on the Internet) is also the soil for personality worship. It is difficult to guarantee that there will not be the possibility of electing a dictator as what happened in Nazi Germany. Mao Zedong might well have become Hitler II if he had participated in fair elections.

After China becomes democratized in the future, it may be like Russia in the early days of its emergence from the communist system, when many small political parties suddenly appear, even to hundreds. This is the result of the dispersion of opinions caused by the suppression of public opinion and thought during the Communist period. With freedom of speech, public opinion will gradually concentrate and form relatively larger political parties.

If there are still many parties by then, voters may eventually become impatient, and their opinions will gradually converge to form a single party that dominates. This is modern Russia and the Nazi Germany of the past, which will soon move toward dictatorship. If Chinese voters think more calmly by then, I hope that a British-American-style two-party system will be formed by then, leading to a relatively stable democratic politics.

Looking back at the reasons for people's fanaticism during the Cultural Revolution, apart from the idealistic fanaticism promoted since the May Fourth Movement, there was stubbornness and difficulty in communication. Therefore, a huge number of small opinion groups had formed, and they attacked each other maliciously without any bottom line. This caused extreme divisions in society and was conducive to the formation of authoritarian politics.

However, the etiquette system of traditional Chinese culture, that is the set of gentleness, courtesy, thrift, benevolence, justice, etiquette, wisdom, and trust, is more inclined to orderly and bottom-line defined social communication, and is more conducive to the formation of benign democratic politics. Just like the traditional culture of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, do not hinder the formation of democratic politics. On the contrary, it helps to move towards democratic politics quickly and steadily. Although the traditional local autonomy in Chinese society was destroyed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the ideological and cultural traditions in China were not uprooted. Without the grassroots dictatorship of the CCP, it is not difficult to restore the traditional structure of local autonomy. That would not be as difficult as in serfdom cultural traditions like Russia.

Of course, the road to democracy in the China’s future will not be without difficulties, but it is still foreseeable to be like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan which moved towards democracy steadily. There will be various difficulties and possibilities, which we will continue to discuss with you in the future. This article is just an immature opinion, hoping to arouse the thinking of these people of knowledge and insight.

(This English version is translated by Ciping HUANG, without any compensation. Wei Jingsheng and the Wei Jingsheng Foundation appreciate her decades of contribution, especially for allowing the use and distribution of her translations of these commentaries.)

Original link of this commentary:

https://www.rfa.org/mandarin/pinglun/weijingsheng/wjs-02212024092052.html

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

http://www.weijingsheng.org/RFA/RFA2024/WeiJS240220onDemocracyinChina1.mp3

Related screenshot of Wei Jingsheng’s commentary on RFA website:

http://www.weijingsheng.org/pic/newsletters/newsletters2024/newsletters2024-1/WeiJSonDemocracyinChinaA240221RFApage.jpg

(Written and recorded on February 20, 2024. Broadcasted by Radio Free Asia on February 21, 2024.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

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: 1-202-270-6980

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: A1637-W1193

魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号：A1637-W1193

Release Date: February 21, 2024

发布日：2024年2月21日

Topic: What Kind of Democracy Is More Suitable for China (Part 1) -- Wei Jingsheng

标题：什么样的民主更适合中国（之一） -- 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/report2024/report2024-2/WeiJS240221onDemocracyinChinaA1637-W1193.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------

什么样的民主更适合中国（之一）

-- 魏京生

最近台湾的选举在华语圈里闹得沸沸扬扬，美国等几个西方国家也面临着即将要选举。这就牵涉到我多年来思考和观察的一个问题，当然也是很多朋友关心的一个问题，就是中国将来需要什么样的民主制度和模式更好。

首先是政党制度。一党专政当然最不好，不仅毛泽东和习近平的一党专政很糟糕，其它一党专政也一样的糟糕，甚至长期一党独大像日本那样，也不是很完满。根据我在国外多年来的观察，真正民主的制度，不管是共和制还是君主立宪制，基本就是两种模式：两党制和多党制。

英语国家大多是两党制，这可能是因为英语思维更加实用主义。对于没有当选可能性的小党，大多数人没什么兴趣。所以多数的选票投向了大概接近自己意愿的政党，以求大概率获得愿望的实现。

欧洲国家正相反，以法国为例，人们更倾向坚持自己的理念，不太愿意折衷。结果必然是选票分散，形成多党政治。不要小看小党，经常是小党左右着最终的结果，甚至必需多党联合才能凑够执政所需的选票。台湾正在形成这种局面。

很多朋友会问：到底哪种模式更好呢？根据我个人的观察，没有哪种模式更好，只需要考虑哪种模式更适合自己的国家。我认为中国人的思维模式更接近于实用主义的英语思维模式，似乎两党制更适合中国的国情。

但中国历史上的崇拜和迷信的现象，更接近俄罗斯、德国和日本文化。不但是文革期间表现出来的狂热不亚于纳粹时期的德国，就是现代的各种粉丝群的狂热程度，也是个人崇拜的土壤。很难保证不会出现纳粹德国那种选出独裁者的可能性。毛泽东如果参加公平的选举，可能也会成为希特勒二世。

中国将来民主化之后，可能会像俄罗斯当年走出共产党制度初期一样，小党林立，一下子出现几百个小党。这是共产党时期，压制舆论和思想造成的意见分散的结果。有了言论自由之后，社会舆论会逐渐集中，形成较大的政党。

届时如果还是多党林立，可能最后选民不耐烦了，意见逐渐集中形成一党独大，这就是现代的俄罗斯和过去的纳粹德国，有很快走向独裁的趋势。如果届时中国的选民比较冷静思考，希望届时能形成英美式的两党制，走向比较稳定的民主政治。

反观文革时期人们狂热形成的原因，除了五四以来推崇的理想主义狂热外，就是固执己见，难以沟通。所以形成了数量巨大的小型意见群体，并且恶意没底线地互相攻击。这造成社会的极度撕裂，有利于形成独裁政治。

但传统文化的礼制，也就是温良恭俭让仁义礼智信那一套，更倾向于有秩序有底线的社会沟通，更有利于形成良性的民主政治。就像日本、韩国和台湾的传统文化，并不妨碍民主政治的形成，反而快速和稳步地走向了民主政治。虽然中国社会传统的地方自治被共产党所破坏，但是思想文化的传统并没有连根拔掉。没有共产党的基层专政之后，恢复地方自治的传统结构并不是难事。不像俄罗斯等农奴制文化传统那样困难。

当然将来的民主之路不可能没有困难，但像日本、韩国、台湾那样稳步走向民主，还是可以预期的。各种困难和可能性都有，这在今后会和大家继续探讨。本篇只不过是抛砖引玉的不成熟意见，希望能引起有识之士们的思考。

(本评论的英文版本由黄慈萍翻译。魏京生和魏京生基金会感谢她数十年来相关的无偿贡献，特别是使用和发布此译文的许可。)

评论的原始链接：

https://www.rfa.org/mandarin/pinglun/weijingsheng/wjs-02212024092052.html