[发表评论] [查看此文评论]    滕彪文集
[主页]->[独立中文笔会]->[滕彪文集]->[Political Legitimacy and Charter 08]
滕彪文集
·CCP party has an exaggerated fear of a color revolution
·維權律師享受和集權者鬥爭樂趣
·Toast at the Stateless Breakfast
·"China é responsável por 90% das execuções mundiais"
·敗訴多於勝訴的名律師(上)
·敗訴多於勝訴的名律師(下)
·China's international relations at a time of rising rule of law challe
·Seven Chinese activists wrote to the Dutch King
·七名中国民主人士致信荷兰国王
·專訪維權律師滕彪對中國法治人權的解讀
·中共的政治株连
·Dictatorship is a Decapitator, Whether it Tortures You or Treats You W
·Innocence project movement in China rises to aid the wrongfully convic
·好處沙龍【選後台灣如何面對中國巨變】
·“你恐惧,中共的目的就达到了”
·SOME QUESTIONS FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA TO ASK PRESIDENT XI
·Book Debate Raises Questions of Self-Censorship by Foreign Groups in C
·Leaked Email: ABA Cancels Book for Fear of ‘Upsetting the Chinese Gov
·Is the ABA Afraid of the Chinese Government?
·Middle way should not be the only voice: Chinese activist to Tibetans
·Middle way not the only way for Tibet, says Chinese rights lawyer
·被曝光的电邮:怕惹恼北京美国律师协会取消出版《黎明前的黑暗》
·美律协违约拒为滕彪出书 国会要求解释
·高智晟:ABA和滕彪哪個更應該強大
·Lawmakers Pounce After ABA Scraps Book by China Rights Lawyer
·American Self-Censorship Association/WSJ
·An interview with China’s foremost rights lawyer Dr Teng Biao
·纽约时报:中国律师新书命运引发在华NGO自我审查争议
·Is China Returning to the Madness of Mao’s Cultural Revolution?
·The Conundrum of Compromise/Robert Precht
·Congress Still Calling Out ABA Over Canceled Book Deal
·No country for academics: Chinese crackdown forces intellectuals abroa
·中共血債大於其他專制國家
·江绪林之死反映中国知识分子精神痛苦唯有自杀寻求解脱
·"THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SOME BRAVE ACTIVISTS WHO REFUSE TO KEEP QUIET"
·“你们全家都是共产党员!”
·滕彪和江天勇获第25届杰出民主人士奖
·访滕彪:中国司法何以如此“高效率”
·'China wacht een revolutie, ik hoop een vreedzame'
·Arrestatiegolf China toont angst van regime
·ENTRETIEN AVEC LE DéFENSEUR DES DROITS DE L'HOMME TENG BIAO
·Le Parti communiste chinois est confronté à une série de crises
·英媒:遭受打击 中国知识分子被迫出国
·709 Crackdown/ Front Line Defenders
·Cataloging the Torture of Lawyers in China
·南海仲裁的法理基础及其对中国的政治冲击
·the Comfort of Self-Censorship
·G20前夕美国家安全顾问会晤中国人权人士
·Chinese dissidents urge Obama to press Xi Jinping on human rights at G
·China blocks major civil society groups from monitoring G20 summit
·Open Letter to G20 Leaders attending the 2016 G20 Summit
·自我审查的自我安慰/滕彪
·细雨中的独白——写给十七年
·Rights lawyers publicly shamed by China's national bar association
·沉默的暴行
·中共“长臂”施压 维权律师滕彪妻子被迫离职
·除了革命,中国已经别无道路
·高瑜案件从一开始就是政治操控
·毛式文革与恐怖主义之异同——国内外专家学者访谈
·最高法维护狼牙山五壮士名誉 学者批司法为文宣服务
·滕彪和杨建利投书彭博社 批评美国大选不谈中国人权议题
·“未来关键运动的发起者可能是我们都不认识的人。”
·政治因素杀死了贾敬龙
·中国维权人士在达兰萨拉与藏人探讨“中共的命运”
·黑暗的2016:中国人权更加倒退的一年
·滕彪談廢死
·滕彪:酷刑逼供背後是国家支持的系统性暴力
·在黑暗中尋找光明
·专访滕彪、杨建利:美国新法案 不给人权侵害者发签证
·海内外民主人士促美制裁中国人权迫害者/RFA
·A Joint Statement Upon the Establishment of ‘China Human Rights Accou
·关于成立“中国人权问责中心”的声明
·Group to Probe China's Human Rights Violations Under U.S. Law
·The Long Reach of China to Silence Its Critics
·王臧:极权主义,不止是“地域性灾难”
·Trump has the power to fight China on human rights. Will he use it?
·纪录片《吊照门》
·「吊照门」事件 引发法界震盪
·脸书玩命想进中国/RFA
·中国反酷刑联盟成立公告
·德电台奖冉云飞滕彪获提名
·中国维权律师:风雨中的坚持
·Harassed Chinese rights lawyer still speaking out on Tibetans’ plight
·Beijing Suspends Licenses of 2 Lawyers Who Offered to Defend Tibetans
·VOA连线:中国反酷刑联盟成立,向酷刑说“不”
·Announcement of the Establishment of the China Anti-Torture Alliance
·Chinese Court Upends 13-Year-Old Rape, Murder, Robbery Convictions
·中共迫害律师的前前后后
·Scholars Return to YLS to Discuss Human Rights Advocacy in China
·Abducted Activists
·中国的民间反对运动与维权运动
·Conversation on China’s human rights: Professor provides first hand a
·Exiled Chinese lawyer says the country is moving toward a new totalita
·VOA时事大家谈:抓律师两高人大邀功,保政权司法第一要务
·滕彪讲述被绑架和单独关押的经历
·Chinese human rights lawyer stresses the duty to resist
·山东“刺死辱母者”案,为何引发民意汹涌?/VOA
·关于审查《城市流浪乞讨人员收容遣送办法》的建议书
·Street Vendor’s Execution Stokes Anger in China
·[video]Academic freedom in the East and Southeast
·海外华人学者成立民主转型研究所VOA
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告

(Political Legitimacy and Charter 08)接上页博讯www.peacehall.com

   
   The attempt to gain “legitimacy” for the regime through economic development is, therefore, doomed to bankruptcy.On the one hand, economic development can only achieve partial “justification.” People demand basic freedom and dignity. Without political freedom, there cannot be complete “justification.” On the other hand, even if the regime did achieve “justification,” this would not be equivalent to gaining “legitimacy.” The legal basis of political power can only originate in genuine endorsement by the people.
   
   3.
   To demand that under such a political structure non-elected officials whole-heartedly serve the people and, moreover, protect people’s freedom of expression, is in itself a human myth. No matter how many Jiao Yulus22 or Kong Fansens23 the official media create, when power comes from the top rather than from voters, and when separation of powers and media freedoms are lacking, it is unavoidable that corruption among government officials will spread. The plundering of citizens’ interests and the encroachment on citizens’ rights then too become inevitable demands and the inevitable result of such a system. Under the workings of the totalitarian system, the strength of humanity within the system is often corroded, or, in other words, it is very difficult for those whose hands are clean to gain important positions in the system. The inertia in totalitarian and post-totalitarian systems is huge; because they are built on a foundation of violence, lies, and plunder, there is no way for them to initiate an ongoing dialogue with citizens in the way open societies do, and it is difficult for them to give prompt and effective responses to society’s demands.
   
   Superficially, legitimacy comes from a democracy centered on voting, but in actuality the source of legitimacy is freedom of expression.In this way, the totalitarian system lacks legitimacy right from the start (there are no elections or endorsement). Moreover, maintaining this kind of rule means it is even less possible to gain legitimacy. To put it another way, Chinese Communists today have neither the desire nor the capability to hold public elections. Citizens’ rights to communication and participation are prerequisites for a healthy system. Superficially, legitimacy comes from a democracy centered on voting, but in actuality the source of legitimacy is freedom of expression. American legal philosopher Lon L. Fuller24 is famous for proposing key factors of legal proceduralism, but he still emphasizes that “openness, maintenance and protection of the integrity of the channels of communication” is the core principle of a substantively natural law. I believe that today we can undertake a workable assessment of the legitimacy of a regime: if it cannot achieve a minimal freedom of expression, the regime has no legitimacy. This standard is superior to that of “whether there is voting or not” because the fraud,manipulation, and brainwashing associated with voting are more difficult to observe and evaluate.
   
   Let us return to the “wife-buying” example. What I want to illustrate is the relationship between justification and legitimacy. B’s purchase of A to be his wife without her consent obviously lacks legitimacy, but this does not imply that B can never gain legitimacy. If B loves and cares for A very much, gives her freedom, happiness, and security, and allows A to leave of her own will, it is very possible that A will recognize B as her lawful husband, and even go through the formalities of marriage. This kind of post-facto sanction gives the marriage of A and B legitimacy. (Of course, this in no way legitimates B’s act of buying a wife.) This is quite possible in reality. But for a regime? Is it possible to imagine that a one-party communist regime built on violence and ideology would give its citizens freedom, happiness, and security in political life, and, furthermore, allow its citizens the freedoms of speech, movement, and travel abroad, as well as lift restrictions on information and association and hold a general election? If the regime could do all this, it could gain citizens’ endorsement at any time and thus resolve the question of legitimacy. And if it could do all this, it would no longer be its original self—it would have crossed the threshold of a free democracy.
   
   4.
   Charter 08, published on December 9, 2008, is a historic political document issued by Chinese civil society.25 It declares the necessity of universal values, such as human rights, rule of law, and democracy, and the necessity of systemic change, and puts forth a plan on how to resolve the current political and social crisis. In fact, it proposes the only possible way to resolve the problem of legitimacy. Since the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown on the democracy movement, the global tide of democratization has not subsided. The number of one-party totalitarian regimes has continued to decrease, making China the only non-democratic major power. Against this background, the significance of Charter 08 could only become more apparent with time.
   
   The core of Charter 08 is freedom and human rights, its goal the establishment of a democratic constitutional government, reflecting the fundamental consensus within China’s movement for a civil society regarding the future direction of Chinese politics. Although the Maoist faction is gasping for air, there is little likelihood that it will stir up trouble in either the realm of thought or the political sphere. In 2004, when “human rights” were for the first time written into the Constitution of the PRC, it was difficult for the government to deny the legitimacy of the human rights language, but the current political power structure has no way to guarantee human rights. Whether in theory or in practice, only the political system that Charter 08 proposes to establish can be a system that truly guarantees human rights.
   
   [T]he strength of this document does not actually lie in the number of people who have signed it, but in its content and in the hundreds of millions of citizens who approve this content.Charter 08 is the concentrated expression of people’s power built up by the democracy movement and the rights defense movement since the late 1970s. As Liu Xiaobo26 said, “The free China of the future lies among the people.” It is primarily civil society and the civilian movement that will decide the forward direction [of the country], not the high echelons of the CPC. More and more people are beginning to emerge from their fear, beginning to speak the truth, and beginning to join the ranks in the fight for freedom. Charter 08 primarily addresses ordinary citizens; it is an appeal to humanity and civil spirit, not an admonishment, plea, or demand to the government. It is, first of all, a citizens’ movement, not simply a political one. And it is also a movement for the long term, one that will accompany the whole process of the realization of democracy in China.
   
   China is poised on the eve of a great transformation. The depth, complexity, and significance of this change can well be described as unprecedented and incomparable. Charter 08 reflects rationally on the major issues that will be confronted during the transformation, such as anti-rightism, land reform, the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, Falun Gong, and June Fourth, as well as on ethnic relations and relations between central and local governments, and suggests the principles for solving them.
   
   Though Charter 08 is only a text, a system of discourse, discourse itself has a power that cannot be ignored. The “imagined social construct” it offers will unleash an ideological contest with the Communist Party’s Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, and the Three Represents,27 and the authorities’ bombastic critique of “universal values” can be considered an indirect response to it. Discourse is action, even more so under a regime that suppresses freedom of speech. Look at how many journalists and writers have been imprisoned in China, look at with what trepidation the authorities have treated the signers of Charter 08, and you will know it. The authorities cannot evade the connotations of political legitimacy this document represents; the strength of this document does not actually lie in the number of people who have signed it, but in its content and in the hundreds of millions of citizens who approve this content. As Charter 08 states, “Legality of political power comes from the people.”

[上一页][目前是第2页][下一页]

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场