Wake up（356）

 

356

 

In today's world, where young people are extremely connected through online platforms, young people are taking the lead in building mechanisms that hold governments accountable. Holding governments accountable through social media is also an important mechanism for ensuring young people's participation in decision-making processes and is one of many youth-led initiatives around the world.

Liu Xiaosheng, a veteran media person, placed his hopes on young people. He said to Nan Yangsheng and other young people: You can learn about history and the world through the Internet, and you can stand beside the globe and think about this society. For example, how to evaluate the 1989 student movement.

Liu Xiaosheng recalled:

It must be admitted that during the 1989 student movement, Zhao Ziyang did his best to control the situation in a peaceful way, and his enlightenment has reached the limit of all previous CCP leaders. And if Zhao Ziyang's thinking is followed to respond to the demands of the people, instead of falling into the "turmoil" that Deng Xiaoping feared, China will gradually embark on a benign interaction between the government and the people.

In fact, the internal and external environment in China during the 1989 period was very conducive to carrying out "controllable large-scale social changes". , which instead proved the strong dissatisfaction of public opinion with corruption and the huge support for political reform.

in particular:

1. Due to the great appeal of the reform, the government still has strong control and authority;

2. There are enlightened factions in important positions within the system, who have proposed a new model for resolving conflicts between officials and the people on the track of democracy and the rule of law;

3. In the elite circle, there are free intellectuals and business people who support political reform;

4. On the public side, there is huge public support that has been spontaneously mobilized.

5. The 1989 Movement itself was basically "rational, peaceful, and orderly." Even after the hunger strike, the city of Beijing remained orderly, and there was no so-called "violent turmoil."

6. The international environment at that time was extremely friendly, and mainstream Western countries fully supported China's reforms. Before the martial law was promulgated, Western public opinion not only supported the students’ peaceful demands, but also gave positive comments on the way the CCP’s top leaders started the dialogue between the government and the people, calling it “the government’s tolerance and tolerance of public opinion.”

All these favorable conditions are unprecedented in the history of China's century-old modernization, so that large-scale civil spontaneous movements will not cause anarchic chaos with a vacuum of authority, but can guarantee: a benign interaction between the government and the people under the premise of social stability political reforms.

According to Mr. Bao Tong’s recollection, Zhao Ziyang’s major decision-making process during the 1989 Movement was as follows: After Hu Yao’s memorial service, Zhao Ziyang made three suggestions: “1. The memorial service has ended, and students should be advised to resume classes; 2. Organize consultation and dialogue, Solve the various demands put forward by the students, strive to ease the contradictions, and do not expand the contradictions; 3, avoid bloodshed, as long as there is no beating, smashing, looting and burning, no coercive measures should be used. No one in the Standing Committee disagreed with these three points, and Deng Xiaoping also agreed. When Ziyang visited North Korea and Li Peng saw him off, Li asked Zhao, "What else is there?" Hands over, maybe saying 'please'."

After Zhao Ziyang returned from his visit to North Korea, the student movement was escalated due to the "4·26 society". Zhao Ziyang delivered a speech on May 3 commemorating the 70th anniversary of the "May 4th Movement". eased. Then, Zhao Ziyang delivered a speech at the annual meeting of the Asian Bank on May 4, and put forward the idea of "solving problems on the track of democracy and the rule of law".

According to Bao Tong's recollection: "For this principled proposition, three of the other four Standing Committee members (including Li Peng) agreed, and one Standing Committee member who did not speak did not say 'no' at the time; The chairman of the National People's Congress agreed, the students agreed, and all walks of life generally agreed. On this basis, the Standing Committee held a meeting on May 8, and the Politburo held a meeting on the 10th, and approved Zhao Ziyang's proposal to carry out consultations and dialogues among all walks of life on the track of democracy and the rule of law. The chairman of the National People's Congress called a meeting of the vice-chairmen, and all of them actively supported the proposal. Afterwards, Deng Xiaoping, chairman of the Military Commission, told General Secretary Zhao Ziyang in front of President Yang Shangkun: "All agree."

The historical materials that can confirm Mr. Bao Tong's account, and Zhao Ziyang's self-report after June 4th: the three-point policy he put forward before his visit to the court was unified by Deng Xiaoping and most of the elders, and was also reached among the Standing Committee of the Politburo. unanimous. After Zhao returned to China, he insisted that Deng Xiaoping's support for the "April 26 Editorial" was an important turning point in the 1989 Movement. Afterwards, Deng Xiaoping's children also called Zhao Ziyang, hoping that Zhao Ziyang would highlight "Deng Xiaoping's concern for youth growth" in his speech at the May 4th meeting of the Asian Development Bank Board of Directors. ADB's speeches were also affirmed by Deng and most of the Standing Committee members.

Liu Xiaosheng said:

The propositions put forward by the 13th National Congress of the Communist Party of China that "leading cadres have dialogue with the masses" and "let the people know about major situations and discuss major issues with the people" were first practiced in the 1989 Movement.

On May 11, Hu Qili went to the "China Youth Daily" to hold a symposium on news reform, conveying Zhao Ziyang's speech: "Open up a bit, report on the parade, and increase the degree of openness of the news. The risk is not great." "Facing the People in China follow what the people of China want, but in the face of international trends, we can only make the best use of the situation.” The dialogue between Politburo Standing Committee member Hu Qili and China Youth Daily journalists was completely different from the previous dialogue between Yuan Mu and others and students. The dialogue between Yuan Mu and others not only did not ease the antagonism at that time, but aroused even greater dissatisfaction among students and intellectuals. Hu Qili's dialogue had a huge positive impact on intellectuals and students, and became a symbolic event of the benign interaction between the government and the people during the 1989 Movement.

On May 13, in order to ease the conflict between the government and the people and welcome the Sino-Soviet summit meeting, Zhao Ziyang sent the enlightened Yan Mingfu to have a dialogue with the people. It must be admitted that Yan Mingfu is indeed a rare talent in the CCP. His sincerity, humility, elder demeanor and ability to control the situation are outstanding even among the enlightened factions in the party. However, due to certain political conditions, Yan Mingfu was not a decision-maker, and he was unable to meet the reasonable demands of the students during the dialogue. However, he persuaded the students with a very sincere attitude to leave room for the reformists: We can do things when we have time." "The qualitative problem of the April 26 editorial must be resolved, but it takes time. On behalf of the Central Committee, I guarantee that we will never settle accounts after the fall." He even said: "You don't Believe me, you can take me back to Peking University, not to arrest, but to take me back to Peking University as a hostage, if it is resolved, you can release me."

In fact, Yan Mingfu had already convinced most of the students and intellectuals who participated in the dialogue. Wang Dan and Wuer Kaixi also made a promise to Yan Mingfu: before Gorbachev's visit, try to persuade the hunger strikers to withdraw from the square. After returning to the square, the two did fulfill their promises. However, the persuasion efforts of student leaders such as Wang Dan, Wuer Kaixi and intellectuals such as Dai Qing, Su Xiaokang, and Bao Zunxin failed due to internal disagreements among the student leaders and the condescending attitude of the intellectuals.

Regarding military martial law, Zhao Ziyang revealed in his self-report: On the issue of implementing military control, Deng Xiaoping, Li Peng, and Yao Yilin initially insisted on military control, while Yang Shangkun, Qiao Shi, and Hu Qili opposed it. Later, on May 17, the top leaders of the CCP held a meeting at Deng Xiaoping's home. Both Yang Shangkun and Qiao Shi temporarily changed their positions, Hu Qili's attitude was ambiguous, and only Zhao Ziyang still insisted on opposing military martial law.

That is to say, throughout the entire process of the 1989 Movement, from opposing the "April 26 Editorial" to his speech at the "Asian Bank Conference", from opening public-private dialogues to opposing military martial law, Zhao Ziyang has always protected and supported The democratic enthusiasm of college students advocates solving problems in a peaceful way through dialogue on the track of democracy and the rule of law. On the major issues of right and wrong in the implementation of martial law, he insisted on his moral stance by giving up his political future and party privileges under completely hopeless realistic conditions, went to the square to apologize to the students, and practiced the "I don't want to Go to hell, who goes to hell!" vowed.

Liu Xiaosheng said: Has Zhao Ziyang not fulfilled his "political responsibility"?

In the 50 years of the CCP’s ruling history, when there was a major conflict between the regime and the people, Zhao Ziyang, as the general secretary of the ruling party, publicly abandoned the position of the regime and sided with the people. This kind of moral gesture is indeed unprecedented. It can be said that under the institutional environment in the mainland, Zhao Ziyang during the 1989 Movement had done his best to promote political reform and avoid bloodshed. His gesture is both a revelation and a moral pressure for those in power who want to make a difference in the era of great change.

In the early 1990s after June 4th, based on the economic regression caused by Li Peng, Deng Xiaoping once wanted to use Zhao Ziyang again, but in response to the information that Deng Xiaoping entrusted, Zhao Ziyang put forward two requests for his comeback, which shows his political conscience. Persevere: one is to have real power, and the other is to re-evaluate the 1989 Movement. Obviously, Deng Xiaoping might agree to the former, but Duan Duan would not agree to the latter.

Zhao Ziyang, who is already under house arrest, still believes: "All the problems encountered by economic reform are caused by the failure to carry out political system reform. However, political system reform has not been pushed forward since 1987.  … …June XNUMXth will not be rehabilitated in the short to medium term. But I believe that there will always be a saying in history, and it will eventually return to its true colors.”

Liu Xiaosheng said: This passage can probably be used as Zhao Ziyang's self-assessment of his political actions in the late 1980s.

Under the mainland system, all major decisions implemented by Zhao Ziyang could only be carried out with Deng Xiaoping's backing support. This is not only the reason why he became the protagonist of the reform, but also the ultimate source of his political tragedy. Zhao Ziyang's political immaturity or lack of attention to the rules of the game of authoritarian politics, as well as his personality that likes to show off, are the secondary reasons for his tragedy.

The greatest tragedy of Zhao Ziyang lies in: he had to rely on Deng Xiaoping's authority to eliminate the resistance of high-level party members, but also succumbed to Deng Xiaoping's pampering and the inertia of the dictatorship to restrain himself at any time. However, after all, Zhao Ziyang is not like a politician under the CCP system, but more like a politician eager for success in the era of great change. He likes openness and transparency, and he is undoubtedly an excellent political virtue under other political systems, but Under the CCP system, he would become ostentatious or arrogant, which made him difficult to be tolerated by Deng Xiaoping in the end.

Zhao Ziyang's eagerness for success is manifested in economic reforms. Before the time was ripe, he fully implemented Deng Xiaoping's decision to forcefully break through the price barrier, and prematurely proposed "joining the international cycle", which led to internal and external conflicts within the party. The general dissatisfaction of the society is manifested in the high-level power struggle. Regarding the issue of Hu Yaobang's resignation, he kept a low profile when he should not; He did not take Hu Yaobang's fate as a lesson from the past and draw lessons from it. He proposed "new authoritarianism" to his staff, and publicly affirmed the TV political film "River Elegy" and its value orientation of "towards a blue civilization" that clearly portrayed him as a new authority, all under the CCP system Taboo behavior can easily be exploited by schemers with ulterior motives. At this time, when he was at the peak of power just after the end of the 13th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, foreign media interpreted "new authoritarianism" and "River Elegy" as "supporting Zhao and overthrowing Deng", which naturally aroused the anger of Deng Xiaoping's elders. suspicion.

Although, according to Mr. Wu Jiaxiang, the main proponent of "new authoritarianism" at that time, before the official introduction of "new authoritarianism", Zhao Ziyang had consulted Deng Xiaoping's opinion and obtained Deng's approval. However, the tradition of the CCP is dictatorship. The author himself can criticize or disapprove as he pleases, but other people cannot express his opinion easily, especially if the person in the position of successor says the same thing, he will be suspected by the Supreme Emperor as "has the ambition to replace him."

On this point, Deng Xiaoping is not substantially different from Mao Zedong. It's just that Mao Zedong's desire for lifetime power was basically consistent with his words and deeds, while Deng Xiaoping's desire for lifetime power was inconsistent. Like Mao Zedong in his later years, it was Deng's lust for power that led him to be pathologically sensitive to those around him. No matter whether there was a real power challenge or not, as long as he subjectively identified some kind of threat from his successor, even if it was caused by excessive fear The threat of self-fiction, the ups and downs are the inevitability of his political machinations.

Therefore, regardless of whether Zhao Ziyang is sure in his heart that he can challenge Deng's authority in some way, such an obvious political message will be regarded by Deng as a challenge to power, which will definitely arouse Deng Xiaoping's dissatisfaction, because he has long been dissatisfied with him. He provided a handy excuse for conservatives, and also paved the way for his own subsequent resignation. In this sense, from the perspective of political wisdom, whether it is Hu Yaobang or Zhao Ziyang, they were suspected of political naivety when they showed their sharpness when the Supreme Emperor was still firmly in control of the highest power. In the reality of the transition period of the totalitarian system, without sufficient political obscurity and patience, it is impossible to achieve epoch-making achievements. In this regard, compared with Gorbachev and Yeltsin who ended the totalitarian system of the former Soviet Union, Hu and Zhao lacked Gorbachev's patience to hide their strengths and bide their time, and showed their sharpness before the supreme power was in hand; He lacked the political courage Yeltsin had when he was in political adversity, and he was too self-conscious and taciturn after he stepped down.

Bureaucratic habits ruined the great opportunity provided by the 1989 Movement. Compared with the May 4th Movement, there are three biggest differences between the 1989 Movement and the May 4th Movement. Before the "May Fourth Movement", the main appeal of the May Fourth Movement was "nationalism", while the main appeal of the 1989 Movement was "democratic". The second is the huge difference in the degree of social control of the ruling groups. The warlord regime in the May 4th period was unable to exercise comprehensive and strict control over the whole society, while the CCP regime in the 1989 period firmly controlled the main resources of the whole society. Thirdly, the external environment facing China is completely different: during the May 4th period, the world was turbulent, and China was surrounded by urgent threats; while during the 1989 period, the world was basically peaceful, and China's external environment was becoming more and more friendly. change in direction.

It can be said that the internal and external environment in China during the 1989 period was conducive to large-scale and controllable social changes—the large-scale mobilization of the 1989 Movement provided huge public support, the government’s control was still strong, and a friendly international environment Provided a basic guarantee for social stability. That is to say, at that time China was carrying out controllable social changes, there were enlightened factions in important positions in the regime, there were free intellectuals and business people who supported political reform in the elite circle, and there were spontaneous mobilization among the people The huge support of public opinion and the favorable conditions of the three at the same time are unprecedented in China's century-old history of modernization, so that large-scale civil spontaneous movements will not cause anarchic chaos with an authority vacuum. If the necessary concepts, information communication, strategy and action cooperation are maintained among the three, the result will definitely be more positive than a society that lacks control. In other words, if the liberal faction in the party can seize the opportunity and handle every aspect of the movement relatively well, the bottom-up popular support and the top-down response in good faith can fully maintain social stability on the premise of basically maintaining social stability. Create a new situation for China to move towards a free society.

Most people agree that the least costly way to complete social transformation in mainland China is obviously that the ruling party with strong public support actively promotes political reforms, forming a benign interaction between the public, social elites, and enlightened factions within the ruling party. In order to avoid artificial isolation and cause one party to make a unilateral misjudgment. In the 1980s, when political reforms were in full swing, there was indeed a huge combined force inside and outside the system to promote political reforms. At that time, there was a basic consensus on the overall position between the enlightened faction in the party represented by Hu and Zhao, the liberal intellectuals and the public. One of the important reasons for the failure of the 1989 Movement was that in the whole process of the movement, all kinds of complex human resistance caused the lack of necessary communication, interaction and cooperation among student organizations, liberal intellectuals and enlightened factions within the party.

Liu Xiaosheng said:

It is undeniable that Zhao Ziyang has done his best within the party to control the situation in a peaceful manner, and his enlightenment has reached the limit of all previous leaders of the CCP. However, it must also be admitted that China's long-term political tradition and the CCP's monopoly and privileged status for decades have formed a condescending "parental official" personality of the rulers. I am not used to put down the airs of the ruler and face public opinion with an equal attitude. If from the very beginning of the movement, the enlightened faction in the party did not only strive to solve the problem in a peaceful way within the party, but maintained information communication and strategy sharing with the student movement and intellectual circles in some way, the result may be will be completely different. In this sense, it is by no means the students who are "a disservice" but the enlightened faction and its aides themselves.

To varying degrees, youth groups have the problems of insufficient struggle motivation and dispelled struggle spirit. The new era is the era of strugglers. For the youth group, struggle is the brightest background of youth. The mission of national rejuvenation must be realized through struggle, and the sail of life ideals must be hoisted through struggle.

Liu Xiaosheng said:

Regrettably, the current reality is that the survival and development difficulties such as "the channels for upward mobility are not smooth enough", the "tide of layoffs" during the epidemic, and the popularity of online discourse such as "laying flat" and "destroyed" all affect the current struggle status of young people. make an impact. What makes Chinese people more vigilant is that there are always some shameless brainwashing experts who will mislead the younger generation endlessly. Remember, these imperial literati will not have the truth in their mouths.