梁家傑參選與議會道路
◎ 金 鐘

 

在截稿的時候,聽到了香港破天荒的特首候選人首次電視辯論會,頗有些感觸。正如公認的那樣,這種辯論盡管是競選形式的進步,可以提升民主派的參政能力,但不可能影響到北京控制的「小圈子選舉」結果,也無需再品評現任特首曾蔭權和民主派候選人梁家傑在答問交鋒中的得失高低,值得重視的是這場電視辯論的象徵意義。回想第一屆特首選舉,有八名候選人,還有點競選味道,到了第二屆特首選舉時,竟出現大陸式的「等額選舉」,只有董建華一人競選連任!無他,人們都看透了包辦的選舉無聊得很,無心遊戲。

到了近兩年,港人經過一番爭取○七○八雙普選的抗爭和洗禮,一個更有機會的中產階級政黨公民黨的誕生,才推出了一位資深大律師,獲得泛民主派為主的一百三十二名選委支持,取得候選人資格。和民主派過去沒有興趣也沒有可能參與小圈子遊戲相比,現在梁家傑的參選,無疑是民主派向北京強力控制的現體制的妥協,政綱的選擇已繞過○七○八之議,爭取北京仍不願承諾的二○一二年雙普選。這是香港民主派戰略的一個務實的轉變,這種轉變基於中港關係的大形勢,也基於民主的漸進原理。因為妥協並非只是權謀的手段,如胡適強調的「容忍比自由更重要」,妥協本是民主的基本精神。我們看到西方成熟的民主社會,處理民主過程中的分歧與對抗,無不顯示包容、妥協和折衝的手法。這也正是民主與暴力革命的本質區別所在。因此,香港民主派的選擇贏得市民廣泛的認同。

香港是一個高度現代化的商業社會,接受激進的社會改革方案的可能性甚微,其包含的必然性,令人想到二十世紀思想界的大辯論,雖然從俄國到中國激進的革命思潮佔了上風,但和平的改良的「議會道路」,在國際共運中一直是餘音繚繞。斯大林暴政失敗後,蘇共二十大旗幟鮮明地提出「和平過渡」、「議會道路」等一系列新論點,乃是和戰後世界進步潮流的同步發展。毛澤東反其道而行,「反修」的最後結局也逃不脫一場文革浩劫。從趙紫陽軟禁中的反思可以看出,中共內部的明智之士的思路,也歸入了放棄專政推崇議會民主的軌道。

香港人明白,沒有大陸的民主化,就沒有香港真正的民主政制。而中國的民主化,也有越來越多的人認同憲政民主之路。一九九八的組黨潮到今日的維權運動,都以承認國家憲法為底線。然而執政的共產黨把任何妥協的願望,都當作對它獨佔權力的挑戰,這就從根本上損害了政治妥協的必要前提。香港的民主派至少暫時得放棄中共如台灣那樣開放黨禁的幻想,而回到十九世紀西歐工人爭取社會主義的一種選擇上來﹕走進議會,贏得席位。

( 2007 年 3 月 2 日開放雜誌)

 


Leong's Campaign and the Parliamentary Way
By Jin Zhong

Just before we wrapped up this issue, it was confirmed that Hong Kong will make history by holding its first public debate between candidates for the office of Chief Executive (CE) with live TV coverage. But as we all know, although this represents a progress in the way the election is held, and will enhance the ability of Hong Kong democrats to participate in politics, this new ingredient will not change the result of the “small-circle” election controlled by Beijing. Therefore, we need not take a stand on who wins or loses the debate between the incumbent Donald Tsang Yam-kuen and his challenger Alan Leong Kah-kit, who represents the democrats. What is more interesting is the symbolic meaning of the TV debate itself. Looking back to the first CE election, there were eight candidates, giving us an atmosphere of competition. But the second election was reduced to a single candidate, a typical mainland Chinese practice. Only the incumbent Tung Chee-hwa sought re-election. Why? People saw through the nature of a “monopolized” election, and simply wanted nothing to do with it.

In the last two years, since Hong Kong people have fought for universal suffrage starting in 2007/2008, and the middle-class Civic Party has been established and shown real potential for growth, the democrats have finally agreed to back a senior barrister for the candidacy. With the endorsement of 132 electoral committee members, Mr. Leong has succeeded in gaining a nomination. In comparison with the previous situation, in which the democrats lacked either the interest or the ability to participate in this small-circle game, Leong's candidacy is undoubtedly a compromise the democrats have made in countering a system heavily controlled by Beijing. Leong's platform by-passes the earlier demand for universal suffrage in 2007/08, and calls for such rights starting in 2012 instead. This represents a pragmatic change in strategy for the Hong Kong democrats' fight for democracy. While taking into account the current relationship between China and Hong Kong, this change is also based on the principle of gradual democratization. Compromise is not only a means of manipulating power. As China scholar Hu Shi put it long ago, “Tolerance is more important than freedom.” Compromise is fundamental to the spirit of democracy. As we all know, when dealing with differences and confrontations in the democratic process, mature democratic societies in the West all exhibit tolerance and comprise. This is exactly the difference between democracy and violent revolution, and is why this choice made by Hong Kong's democrats has been widely acceptance by the public.

Hong Kong is a highly modernized commercial society, with little likelihood of embracing radical social change. Its inevitable embrace of tolerance recalls the fierce debate among thinkers of the last century. Although thoughts of revolution gained an upper hand from Russia to China, calls for a peaceful and reformist “parliamentary road” continued in the international communist movement. After the failure of Stalin's tyranny, the fact that the 20 th plenum of the Soviet Communist Party unequivocally raised the banner of a series of new propositions such as “peaceful transition” and “parliamentary road” showed attempts to flow with the progressive tide of the post-war world. Only Mao Zedong swam against this tide. He started with a campaign against so-called “revisionism” and ended up with the catastrophe of the Cultural Revolution. From the reflections of former Party chief Zhao Ziyang in captivity (see last month's editorial), one can see that open-minded Party members have already rejected dictatorship in favor of parliamentary democracy.

The people of Hong Kong understand that there will be no true democracy in Hong Kong without democracy on the mainland. Now more and more people in China are embracing constitutional democracy. From the attempts to form alternative parties in 1998 to today's rights defense movement, all efforts by ordinary citizens have been based on the concept of the constitution as the bottom line. However, in the eyes of the Communist Party, any aspiration toward compromise is a challenge to its monopoly on power. This undermines the very foundation of the necessary prerequisite to political compromise. Democrats on Hong Kong will have to temporarily abandon the illusion that the Communist authorities will lift their ban on alternative political parties, as has been done in Taiwan. They will have to return to the road adopted by 19 th century western European workers who fought for socialism: win seats and join the parliament.

(Open Magazine, March 2, 2007)