对王希哲先生“中国民主党欧洲总部成立大会”发言的一点看法 A Comment on Mr Wang Xizhe’s Speech at the Founding Conference of the European Headquarters of China Democracy Party

作者：程敏

5月10日，我作为中国民主党英国总部的党员，参加了“中国民主党欧洲总部成立大会”，场上来了不少海外民运圈的的知名人士，基本每位嘉宾也都在会上发表了讲话，其中有老成持重谈民运历史的，有畅想中国民主未来的，也有香港民主人士分享自身被迫害经历的，总的来说还是获益良多，但唯独有一位老先生，发表了长达二十多分钟（也许更长）的讲话，在我看来满是槽点。现场提问环节中我因为个人原因没能表达自己的看法，今天特地写一篇评论来送给这位海外民运圈的资深大佬——王希哲先生。因为王希哲先生的发言过于漫长，我本人的记忆力又不是很好，所以要反驳他的所有观点是不太可能的，所以我只针对我印象深刻的两点来反驳。可能引用的和他本人原话有出入，但我会尽量保证不曲解他的原意。

第一，“我的立场与台湾国民党一致，就是两岸交流，推动、或者说迫使中国共产党进行民主改革，因为如果中共不接受，那就是倒行逆施。”老实说如果不是本人在现场，我很难想象这段观点出自一个干了一辈子民运的老人之口。首先我想要先向王希哲先生普及两点常识：

中国共产党不是一般意义上的现代政党，而是融合了马克思主义和中国传统封建帝制的一党专政政权。中共统治的核心目的有且只有一个——即维持红色政权的专制统治与权力的稳固；

中国共产党统治的核心手段是暴力，谎言与洗脑，这三者相辅相成，在“依法治国”的外衣下实际支撑着中共权力的稳固。

那么我想请问王希哲先生一个问题，你一个干了一辈子民运的老前辈，六四屠杀事件的见证者，你凭什么觉得一个“核心目的是维持权力稳固，并依靠谎言，暴力，洗脑来实现这一点”的中共，会因为你所谓的民主大势而放弃权力，进行民主改革呢？世界共同谴责？中共如果怕你谴责，六四屠杀就不会发生，香港国安法也不会落地，无数异议人士也不会因言获罪被投入监狱了！中共最大的问题并不在于“不愿改革”，而在于其统治合法性本身建立于一党独裁下的谎言与暴力基础之上。一旦开放真正意义上的新闻自由、司法独立与竞争性选举，其统治基础就会土崩瓦解。因此，对中共而言，“民主改革”是致命的毒药。你指望靠所谓“民主大势”迫使中共“服软”进行民主改革，我只能说是老一辈民运人士的“浪漫主义精神”了。

第二，“请你不要以民主党的名义反共，中国民主党没有反共的口号”。作为一个民主党党员，这一段我同样觉得难以接受。在我看来，口号并不是党章这种用来体现党的纲领，宗旨以及目的的严肃性存在，而是往往在活动现场临时想到、目的明确、简短好记的一两句话而已，并没有什么硬性的规定，充其量不骂人不飙脏话也就是了，在中国，支持民主和反对共产党这两点天然就是统一的，王希哲先生告诉我们不要以民主党的名义反共，那我也告诉你，我作为中国民主党成员，我就是要喊反共口号，而且我就是要以民主党党员的名义来喊！

王希哲先生当天还有诸多譬如“台独是皇民后代，台独是逃跑”，“支持武统台湾”等奇葩发言，限于篇幅，我不想一一吐槽，在此只想说，王希哲先生，你代表不了中国民主党，所以不要整天把民主党元老的资历当作你肆意妄言的资本，你是创党元老，你的发言天然会被别人代入到民主党的立场里，所以你的每一次耸人听闻的发言伤害的都不只是你个人的信誉，而是在损伤整个民主党的形象与信誉，所以请你以后发言的时候谨慎一点，不要让我们这些民主党党员也承受无妄之灾好吗？

On 10 May, as a member of the UK Headquarters of the China Democracy Party, I attended the “Founding Conference of the European Headquarters of the China Democracy Party”. Quite a number of well-known figures from the overseas Chinese pro-democracy movement were present. Almost every guest delivered a speech. Some spoke with maturity and composure about the history of the movement; some looked ahead to the future of democracy in China; and Hong Kong democrats also shared their own experiences of persecution. Overall, I found the event highly rewarding.

There was, however, one elderly gentleman whose speech, lasting more than twenty minutes — perhaps even longer — struck me as deeply problematic. During the question-and-answer session, I was unable to express my views for personal reasons. I am therefore writing this comment today for that veteran heavyweight of the overseas pro-democracy community: Mr Wang Xizhe.

Since Mr Wang’s speech was extremely long, and since my own memory is hardly perfect, it would be impossible for me to rebut every point he made. I will therefore address only two points that left a strong impression on me. My quotations may differ from his exact wording, but I will do my best to avoid distorting his original meaning.

First: “My position is consistent with that of Taiwan’s Kuomintang: cross-Strait exchanges, in order to promote — or, one might say, force — the Chinese Communist Party to carry out democratic reform. If the CCP refuses to accept this, then it will be acting against the tide of history.”

To be frank, had I not heard this in person, I would have found it difficult to imagine such a view coming from an elderly man who has spent his entire life in the pro-democracy movement. I would first like to remind Mr Wang of two basic facts.

The Chinese Communist Party is not a modern political party in the ordinary sense. It is a one-party dictatorship that combines Marxism with China’s traditional imperial and feudal political structures. The core purpose of CCP rule is singular: to preserve the authoritarian rule and political security of the red regime.

The core instruments of CCP rule are violence, lies and indoctrination. These three reinforce one another and, under the façade of “rule of law”, sustain the stability of the CCP’s power.

I would therefore like to ask Mr Wang a question. As a senior figure who has spent a lifetime in the pro-democracy movement, and as a witness to the Tiananmen massacre, on what basis do you believe that a CCP whose central purpose is to maintain its hold on power, and which relies on lies, violence and indoctrination to do so, would give up that power and carry out democratic reform simply because of some so-called democratic trend?

International condemnation? If the CCP feared condemnation, the Tiananmen massacre would never have happened, the Hong Kong National Security Law would never have been imposed, and countless dissidents would never have been imprisoned for their words.

The CCP’s fundamental problem does not merely lie in its unwillingness to reform. Its political legitimacy itself rests on lies and violence under one-party dictatorship. Once genuine press freedom, judicial independence and competitive elections are introduced, the foundations of its rule will collapse. For the CCP, therefore, “democratic reform” is a fatal poison. To expect some supposed democratic tide to force the CCP to yield and carry out democratic reform can only be described as the romanticism of an older generation of pro-democracy activists.

Second: “Please do not oppose the Communist Party in the name of the Democracy Party. The China Democracy Party does not have an anti-Communist slogan.”

As a member of the Democracy Party, I find this statement equally unacceptable. In my view, a slogan is not the party constitution. It is not a solemn document setting out the party’s programme, principles and objectives. More often, it is one or two short, clear and memorable lines that people think of at an event for a specific purpose. There are no rigid rules for it. At most, one should avoid abuse and vulgar language.

In China, support for democracy and opposition to the Communist Party are naturally united. Mr Wang tells us not to oppose the Communist Party in the name of the Democracy Party. Then I will also tell him this: as a member of the China Democracy Party, I will chant anti-Communist slogans, and I will do so precisely in the name of a member of the Democracy Party.

Mr Wang also made many other bizarre remarks that day, including claims such as “Taiwan independence supporters are descendants of imperial subjects”, “Taiwan independence is an act of fleeing”, and expressions of support for armed unification with Taiwan. For reasons of space, I do not intend to respond to each of these in turn.

I will say only this: Mr Wang Xizhe, you do not represent the China Democracy Party. Please stop treating your status as a founding elder of the party as licence to speak recklessly. You are indeed a founding elder, and for that very reason, others will naturally associate your words with the position of the Democracy Party. Every sensational statement you make damages more than your own credibility. It harms the image and credibility of the entire Democracy Party.

So, in future, please be more cautious when you speak. Do not make ordinary members of the Democracy Party bear the consequences of your unwarranted remarks.