Wake up（145）

 

145

 

Unforgettable historical events are only the tangible consequences of invisible changes in human thought. Individuals in isolation have the ability to control their own reactive behavior, groups do not. Bossy and bigotry are common to groups of all types. Crowds are always obedient to power, but rarely moved by benevolence. In their view, benevolence and kindness are only synonymous with weakness and deceit.

The public has no ability to distinguish, so they cannot judge the authenticity of things. Many viewpoints that cannot withstand scrutiny can easily be generally agreed. It is not the facts themselves that shape the popular imagination, but the way in which they occur and are noticed.

The earth-shattering anti-rightist struggle has also changed the ability of the Chinese public to discern. The public does not understand the political and legal responsibilities of anti-rightists.

When talking about the political and legal responsibilities of anti-rightism, Li Si told Nanshan Yun: Anti-rightism is not only a major mistake, but also a crime against the Constitution and the law; The country and its leaders should bear corresponding political and legal responsibilities for the state behaviors carried out by the ruling party and the government with him as the chairman of the country.

From the perspective of the rule of law, "classify" innocent citizens as "rightists" other than the people, treat them as enemies or criminals, deprive them of their political rights, and some even deprive them of their personal rights, and throw them into prison, at least committing a crime of negligence , is to be investigated by law, as a party and government leader, should bear the responsibility of the state, and make a political apology and state compensation to the victim.

As for the violent anti-rightist criticism, it was a mass slander campaign under the instigation of the ruling party, especially during the Cultural Revolution. From the point of view of civil rights, it is a serious violation of the citizen's right to reputation, and an apology should be provided, the reputation should be restored, and the material and spiritual losses of the victim should be compensated. After the ruling party "corrected" the wrong decision to draw right, it has not even compensated the original wages deprived of those who were wrongly drawn by administrative punishment such as demotion or dismissal, let alone other material and spiritual compensation. up.

From a procedural point of view, the decision to deprive citizens is made by the grassroots party committees based on the party's internal documents, such as the "Criteria for Classifying Rightists", using the "party law" instead of the national law, without trial by the judiciary. The punishment of political rights and personal rights is an ultra vires act that violates legal procedures. As for not allowing "rightists" to defend and appeal, let alone reverse the verdict, and completely deprive these people of their litigation rights, it is an illegal and tortious act. It has not been allowed to screen for 20 years, and it has never been done in previous political campaigns.

Li Si said to Nan Shanyun: "I have read the anti-rightist memoir written by Guo Daohui of Tsinghua University. I suggest you take the time to read it. He described his experiences before and after the anti-rightist movement. In fact, it also revealed the lawlessness of the anti-rightist struggle."

After Li Si left, Nan Shanyun began to search the Internet for anti-rightist memoirs written by Guo Daohui. He quickly found the information he needed.

Guo Daohui wrote in his anti-rightist memoirs:

Let me tell you about my experience here. I remember that in July 1957, the Tsinghua Party Committee criticized my so-called "rightist" remarks, and was named together with the former Party Secretary Yuan Yongxi in the People's Daily and Beijing Daily. They asked me to talk to Zhou Shouchang. At that time, it was clearly stated that we only belonged to "ideology and understanding problems", and they continued to arrange work for us. But in February 1958, when the rightists were officially dealt with nationwide, they came to talk to us again. Jiang Nanxiang said, now I have to classify you as rightists. I originally wanted to save you, so after criticizing you, I still arranged work and wanted to take a look (probably not only because of our attitude performance, but also because of the central government's policies). Said that he asked Comrade Xiaoping, such a large number of rightists in the party will be expelled, what will be done in the future? Deng Xiaoping said: "First, all party members who have rightist remarks will be expelled from the party, even crying. Second, after being expelled, they can rejoin the party in the future." (I remember that when dealing with rightists, People's Daily published an article In his speech, he openly mentioned that after being expelled from the party, the rightists in the party can rejoin the party after reforming. Presumably it is also based on Deng Xiaoping’s instructions.) That is to say, after the two of you are expelled, you can still rejoin the party. Now only if you are expelled, "the banner of the party committee can be held high", the meaning is self-evident, in fact, it is to negotiate a condition for us, promising us to re-join the party, hoping that we will cooperate and not embarrass the party committee (the implicit meaning is It is better to explain to the higher authorities and keep the party committee. In fact, during the tense stage of Mingfang, some members of the Standing Committee suggested "throwing out a party committee cadre" to relieve the huge pressure of the masses on the party committee). He also said that the party knows you well, and you have done a lot of work for the party in the past, and you will not be abandoned after you are fired, and arrangements will be made at work. (See the transcript of this conversation I kept)

Guo Daohui continued:

He said so, and he did. I was reclassified as a "rightist" in February 1958, and it was only a little over a year. In October 1959, it was announced that I had taken off my hat. In 1961, the Tsinghua Party Committee handled the procedures for me to re-join the party. Liu Ren, deputy secretary of the Beijing Municipal Party Committee, also sent a cadre from the organization department, Comrade Zhao Bin, to Tsinghua to talk to me, intending to approve my re-joining the party. Before liberation, Liu Ren was the leader of the underground party in the Beiping area. When I worked in the Propaganda Department of the Party Committee of Tsinghua University in the early days of liberation, I often reported to the municipal party committee. He also knew that we young people had no anti-party ambitions. The party did it. But less than a month later, Jiang Nanxiang sent a message saying: "I'm sorry, we sent a report to the Central Committee, and the Politburo decided that no rightists are allowed to be screened, and no rightists in the party are allowed to re-join the party." Mao Zedong didn't work there.

In 1978, through Comrade Peng Peiyun (she was my comrade-in-arms when she was the leader of the Tsinghua underground party branch) to Jiang Nanxiang, I submitted a letter of appeal for my redress. Soon she relayed Nan Xiang's reply, saying that it was difficult to do so, "Guo Daohui is fine as a non-Party Bolshevik." This may be because she was worried about overturning my case and causing a chain reaction. (At first he firmly opposed to "correcting" Qian Weichang and Yuan Yongxi.)

In 1979, Comrade Wang Hanbin transferred me to work in the Office of the National People's Congress Legal Committee newly established by the National People's Congress. Jiang Nanxiang's wife also worked with me later. She kindly conveyed Jiang Nanxiang's words to me: "57 years is not about Jiang Nanxiang, but about Kang Sheng's plan. Guo Daohui is a rightist." I can understand this. Indeed, Kang Sheng had intervened in Tsinghua's anti-rightist movement. In his public speech at the time, he denounced Tsinghua's political teachers as "annihilated", so that the three directors of the three teaching and research groups, the party secretary and nearly two-thirds of the teachers were classified as "rightist" or "rightist". Namely subject to party probation and other punishments. However, how did Kang Sheng know that there was a certain Guo in Tsinghua University and his "rightist remarks"? I can understand that Principal Jiang had difficulties at that time. He was not a far-left person. He has been in Tsinghua for many years, and he also tried to resist those political movements that interfered with the normal educational order. In the early years in Yan'an, he also wrote to the Central Committee to express his dissent against the rescue movement. Regarding Tsinghua's designation of 571 rightists under Jiang Nanxiang's administration, his old classmate and comrade-in-arms Wei Junyi also expressed incomprehensibility and criticism in her "Thoughts Record". Because she always thought that Jiang Nanxiang was more supportive. Wei Junyi also questioned Qian Weichang's classification as a "rightist". She wrote in "Records of Pain":

"He [Jiang Nanxiang] raised his opposition to the 'rescue' movement more than 20 years ago, and tried his best to protect me during this anti-rightist movement, but his subordinates ruthlessly marked Qian Weichang. Why is this? He said that Qian Weichang is not a very good person, but not being very good does not mean that he is a rightist! Is it because of the political situation in the whole country that people can no longer protect themselves or their friends, or wait for the future to screen him? But 25 Years have not been screened. I can’t explain this situation on behalf of Lao Jiang.”

  anyway. So far, the ruling party has only taken so-called "corrective" measures to the vast majority of "rightists", but has not formally apologized or compensated the misclassified citizens and party members in the name of the party and the government. This is inconsistent with the political responsibilities and political ethics that a government as a country ruled by law and a ruling party that wants to "govern according to law" should assume.

Is it possible for a country to make mistakes, or even commit crimes? This has historically been a theoretically contentious issue. As the so-called "monarch is not at fault". There is also the saying that the Communist Party is always correct, that a socialist country is a country of the people, and it naturally serves the people. The practice of world history, including the historical lessons of the Soviet Union and our country, has broken this myth.

Should the country bear political responsibility and compensation for the country's crimes? Modern democratic and civilized countries have increasingly recognized the damage to society, the public, individuals, and the international community caused by state actions. Not only the direct responsible persons must be held accountable politically and legally, but state leaders must also bear state responsibility .

There are generally two forms of assuming state responsibility. One is political responsibility, where the state leader makes a political apology, apologizes externally to the injured country, internally to the injured people, or resigns; or mentally damaged persons shall be given economic compensation. (Political apology can also be said to be a kind of political or spiritual compensation.) Even if the government is not at fault, but for the benefit of the majority and causes other people or some people to suffer losses, the state must give corresponding compensation. Because, if it is not out of his own moral volition, no individual has the legal obligation to sacrifice or give up his own rights and interests for the collective benefit. This is the basic ethic of a country ruled by law.

When Nan Shanyun read the anti-rightist memoir written by Guo Daohui, he began to meditate.

Regarding assuming national political responsibility, one of the most famous examples after World War II was when former West German Chancellor Willy Brandt knelt down in front of the monument to the Poles killed by the German Nazis when he visited Poland in 1971. Brandt was a young man who participated in resistance against the Nazis in the 1940s. He became Chancellor of Germany 30 years later, but he knelt down on behalf of Germany to the victims killed by his predecessor. He said that doing so was "not only for the Poles , In fact, it is first of all to the people of this country", "Acknowledging our responsibilities will not only help cleanse our conscience, but also help everyone live together." Taking national responsibility and making a political apology set a good example.

Nan Shanyun read the 2004 edition of "History Declassified in the Second Half of the 20th Century: Preface" by Boda Press from the Internet, and learned that French President Chirac apologized for the French's help in the persecution of Jews during the German occupation of France. In 1993, Russian President Boris Yeltsin apologized for the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. In 1993, 1996 and 1997, South African President Clark apologized several times for the apartheid policy during the white rule of South Africa. In 1997 the King of Norway apologized for the Norwegian government's oppression of the Semitic minority. In 1997, British Prime Minister Tony Blair apologized for starving countless Irish people during the potato famine. The former president of the Philippines apologized to the people for the crimes of repressing the people during the dictatorship of the former President Marcos. The president of South Korea also apologized to the people of the country for a broken bridge in the country and many people were killed and injured. The prime minister of South Korea also said that he would take political responsibility by resigning. As for the terrorist incidents that have occurred in European and American countries in recent years, the loss of life and property caused by hurricanes and floods, etc., the heads of state of the country have mostly assumed political responsibility for the government's lack of preparedness and relief, and apologized to the people.

Nan Shanyun was surprised to find that some national or local leaders even apologized for the country's crimes hundreds of years ago. For example, the legislatures of Maryland and Virginia passed resolutions, expressing "extreme regret" for the human trafficking and slavery in these two states more than 200 years ago, and believed that this move would help to take measures to "eliminate the impact of slavery on people today." In Australia, in 1998, human rights organizations initiated the designation of May 26 as the "National Apology Day" to reflect on the crime of robbing 100,000 aboriginal children by the British colonists in the 1770s. At that time, white British families were arrested for so-called "Europeanization education" in an attempt to subdue the aboriginals ideologically and culturally. They were called the "stolen generation".

Nan Shanyun read the report of Chinanews.com on October 31, 2005 and Long Yingtai's article "Introspection of the Kuomintang". "In his capacity as the chairman of the Kuomintang at the time, he solemnly apologized three times to the victims for the "white terror" that the Kuomintang authorities suppressed the people. He said: "Although I was still a child at that time, since I am now the chairman of the Kuomintang, I must bear the responsibilities of the Kuomintang in the past."

Sina.com reported on December 12, 2006 in commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the Xi'an Incident: The KMT chairman's office apologized to his relatives on behalf of the KMT for the tragic murder of Yang Hucheng by KMT agents in the 1940s through Taiwan's party history curator Shao Minghuang.

For the country's crimes, the country's leaders will make a political apology to the people and victims, which is conducive to soothing the hearts of the injured, gaining a sense of social justice, resolving public grievances and social conflicts, and promoting social reconciliation. This has become a political and moral convention in civilized nations. The more fundamental purpose is to urge leaders to reflect on the political and economic root causes of the damage, draw lessons from history, examine institutional and specific systemic problems, and make reforms. Because national responsibility is certainly connected with the personal crimes of the leaders, but we cannot just pursue personal responsibility and ignore the changes in the system. The latter is the fundamental way to prevent repeated mistakes. Besides, the courage to assume political responsibility will not damage, but will enhance the prestige of leaders. Brandt's apology earned him the Nobel Peace Prize in 1971, as evidenced by this.

Guo Daohui's anti-rightist memoirs wrote:

It is a pity that our country's political and cultural traditions still lack such habits, sense of responsibility and courage. Even if I express something occasionally, it is not sincere, it is just a superficial article. For example, in ancient my country, some unjust and stupid monarchs were forced to issue "edicts of guilt" when natural disasters and man-made disasters occurred, but they were often just afraid of "God's punishment" or used means to fool the people, rather than being responsible to the people. Another example is the so-called "rescue campaign" in the late stage of the Yan'an rectification movement, which hurt many cadres. Mao Zedong once took off his hat and saluted to express his apology. Tens of millions of people starved to death during the "Great Leap Forward". Later, at the party's "7,000-person meeting" in 1962, party leaders Liu Shaoqi and others also made self-criticisms. Mao Zedong also stated that he, as the party chairman, should bear the main responsibility. But it was just a gesture at a secret party meeting, not a public apology to the people of the whole country, so they didn't actually take responsibility, and thus they didn't really learn a lesson.

However, Zhou Yang, the former head of the literary and art circles, made many "leftist" mistakes before the Cultural Revolution, which hurt many people; During the period, he made a long speech, apologizing to the comrades who had been brutally hurt by him in the past. The old writer Xiao Jun sat in the first row, and he said loudly in his seat: "If you make a mistake, just admit it!" This caused warm applause from the audience. After apologizing and introspecting, he also changed the "left" concept in the past, and promoted humanitarian thought, which was widely praised.

But it is a pity that the party and the government have not seen a political apology for the catastrophe of the anti-rightist movement before the reform and opening up that hurt the majority of cadres and intellectuals and starved tens of millions of people. Leaders have to bear the responsibility of political apology or state compensation. All these are against social fairness and are not conducive to social harmony.

Why should the successors be held accountable for the crimes committed by the party and state leaders in the past? The logical reason for this is: just as a company changes its chairman or general manager, the successor cannot fail to repay the debts owed by his predecessor. Since those crimes are acts of the state, they should bear the responsibility of the state, and as long as the historical continuity of the state continues to exist, as the "legal person" representative of the state, the successor leaders cannot shirk their state responsibilities because of the departure of their predecessors.

Of course, as far as the anti-rightist movement is concerned, it was caused by Mao Zedong’s tactics and the decision-making mistakes of the highest authority in charge of it. To put it bluntly, some units also have complicated personal factors involved that are inconvenient to say clearly. Although the grassroots party and government leaders who presided over the anti-rightist movement may not bear political and legal responsibilities, it does not mean that they do not have any moral responsibilities. "Never forgetting the past is the teacher of the future", there are lessons worth remembering.

Guo Daohui's Anti-Rightist Memoirs has written so far: People have reason to hope and demand that the "unprecedented" historical crimes that have plagued millions, tens of millions, or even hundreds of millions of Chinese people should also be "unprecedented". In order to resolve the social contradictions and social injustices accumulated in our country's history and present, in addition to taking various economic and social security measures, we must strengthen the sense of national responsibility and the political responsibility of party and government leaders at all levels, and earnestly undertake and Only by implementing various responsibility measures and compensating the material and spiritual losses of victims can we pay off historical and current political debts, remove the burden caused by social injustice, and better unite the people of the whole country to move forward lightly and move towards a new future.

Nanshan Yun shut down the computer. He walked slowly to the window and began to think:

Popular groups are only moved by extreme political sentiments because they exaggerate their feelings. An orator who wishes to move a mass of people must speak with integrity and with conviction. Exaggeration, eloquence, constant repetition, absolutely no proof of anything by reasoning—these are the usual rhetorical techniques of the orator at a public meeting. Similarly, those who hold political power, in order to consolidate their power, can use "unwarranted" charges to attack anyone who holds different opinions, and strengthen the sense of responsibility of the "party world" and the political responsibility of party and government leaders at all levels consciousness.

Crowds are always mentally inferior to isolated individuals, but in terms of feelings and the actions they inspire crowds can be better or worse than individuals, according to the political and social circumstances. It all depends on the nature of the cues received by the grassroots group. Some groups of intellectuals with independent thinking may put forward different opinions, and the result is to go to the opposite side of politics and society.

It is worth mentioning that, more than 30 years later, when Brandt's successor leader, Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, Schroeder laid a wreath at the monument again to express his apology, he said something from the bottom of his heart: "Brandt made a special gesture. It shows that only by shouldering historical responsibilities can we move towards the future."

Nan Shanyun was speechless. He couldn't imagine that there would be a leader in China who would apologize to the persecuted people.