以赫魯曉夫為師
◎ 金 鐘

趙紫陽回憶錄的出版,讓人想起1970年赫魯曉夫回憶錄在英國的出版。二者相同之處是都用錄音方式運往國外編輯出書。出版後的風波,也頗為相似﹕序作者杜導正發表對出版的不同意見,赫魯曉夫則聲明沒有把任何材料交給外人,還譴責西方資本主義反蘇的伎倆。事實上,二者都受到共產黨當局的壓力。而兩本書的真實性都無可置疑﹕現在全世界都在網絡上聽到他們並不陌生的中共前總書記的聲音,他的書已經供不應求。而赫魯曉夫的錄音帶經過音圖鑒定得到確認,這位前蘇共第一書記的回憶錄成為研究共產主義運動的必讀書。

這兩本書當然各有特色和不同政治文化背景,但它們都貫穿著一種共產黨領導人中極為罕見的求實與反省精神。從而具有深遠的影響力。蘇共的演變正是從赫魯曉夫的播種開始,經過三十多年的曲折成長,終於在戈爾巴喬夫、葉利欽手上開花結果。赫魯曉夫在蘇共二十大的秘密報告,不僅有劃時代的震撼性,動搖了共產專制的理論和權力基礎,也成為中國五十年代向往自由的知識界的珍貴的思想資源,今天許多回憶反右時代的書都證實了這一點。最近,香港支聯會主席司徒華也以蘇聯解體的經驗,預測六四平反的時間可能在2022年。

我們多次強調蘇聯從一個龐大的極權體制轉型為民主體制,對於中國的借鑒意義。現在很多人都看到,中國的民主轉型,少不了中共體制內進步勢力出馬扮演一定的角色,蘇共模式,是一個選擇。可是,近二十年來,中國經濟走資化取得的成就,使不少人產生故步自封的觀念,認為蘇聯民主化和台灣民主化一樣,並沒有什麼了不起的吸引力。因為普京越來越「像一個獨裁者」,不容人民批評當權的政府,而台灣的民選總統陳水扁已經是遭到囚禁的被告。誰能擔保中國一人一票不會選出一個普京阿扁式的總統?中國這個幾千年都沒有嘗試過還政於民的國家,觀念的因循,原不足怪。不過,我們應該指出,中國思想界早已打破了傳統的禁錮。體現在《零八憲章》中的重要精神,就是「程序正義」,強調現代民主是「憲政民主」,而不只是泛稱的「民主」。換言之,民主建立在正當的程序上。民主的程序,比民主的結果更重要。在台灣、俄羅斯甚至美國的民選制度中,已對此作出生動的闡釋。顯示民主制的精義,並不在於選出一個好的或最好的領導人,而是確立一種人民有選擇權的制度,按照一定的程序去保障和完善這種制度,「選賢與能」才能夠相對實現。阿扁可以被馬英九代替,普京也不可能變成斯大林第二,黑人奧巴馬終於入主白宮,做不好也可以下台。

完全可以設想,在未來中國的民主轉型之中,共產黨憑借多年掌握的各種資源,不僅不會如革命般的被剝奪,反而可能使它贏得一次又一次的選舉。作為認同這種民主價值觀的人們,一定要有這樣的準備。當然,重要的是竭力爭取民主「程序」的合理與不斷完善。而選人的正確與否,成為一種過時的觀念。

 


Khrushchev as Role Model
By Jin Zhong

The publication of Zhao Ziyang’s memoirs recalls to memory the publication of Nikita Khrushchev’s memoirs in England in 1970. A common feature of the two memoirs is the delivery of audio recordings abroad for editing and publishing. The controversy surrounding the two publications is also similar: Du Daozheng, author of the preface for Zhao’s memoirs, expressed his reservations regarding their publication, while Nikita Khrushchev declared that he hadn't sent information to any outsiders and even accused Western capitalists of tricks to oppose the Soviet Union. In fact, Du, like Khrushchev, was under pressure from the Communist Party, but the authenticity of both memoirs is beyond doubt.

Today, readers worldwide can listen online to the familiar voice of the former General Secretary of the CCP, and demand for the memoir has already outstripped supply. On the other hand, the recordings by Nikita Khrushchev were validated after an in-depth analysis and appraisal. This memoir by the former General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is now a must-read in studying the history of communism.

Certainly, the two books display different features and political and cultural backgrounds, but both reflect a realistic and introspective spirit rarely found among Communist leaders. That is why the two memoirs are so significant to readers. The CPSU's development was seeded by Khrushchev, finally bearing fruit, after more than 30 years of adversity, in the era of Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin.

Nikita Khrushchev’s “Secret Speech” at the 20th Congress of the CPSU was epochal, shaking the foundations of the theory and power of communist autocracy. It also served as a valuable and inspirational resource for Chinese intellectuals in 1950s who longed for freedom, as evidenced in many books recalling the era of the Anti-Rightist Campaigns. Recently, Szeto Wah, Chairman of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China, referred to the collapse of the Soviet Union when predicting that the June 4th Incident might be redressed in 2022.

Much emphasis has been placed on the significance to China of the former Soviet Union's transformation from an autocratic megalith to a democratic power. Many now understand that China cannot achieve its democratic transformation unless progressive members of the CCP system come forward to take on certain roles. The Soviet model could be an alternative. However, in the last two decades, China's economic achievements have made its people complacent and conservative, and leading to comparisons between the democratization of the Soviet Union and similarly unappealing developments in Taiwan; Russia's Vladimir Putin is perceived as acting “more like a dictator” who doesn’t accept the people’s criticism of the government, while Taiwan’s President Chen Shui-bian, who was elected by the people, is now in prison. Who can ensure that universal suffrage will not result in the Chinese people electing a president like Chen Shui-bian or Putin?

Over the course of thousands of years, China has never tried to return the power to its people, so it’s not surprising to see the authorities following the same old practices. But it must be pointed out that China's intellectuals have always tended to breaking tradition. The essential spirit embodied in Charter 08 is what we call “procedural justice,” which emphasizes that modern democracy is “constitutional democracy” and should not be referred to as mere “democracy.”

In other words, democracy is established through appropriate procedures, which are far more important than the result. The electoral systems in Taiwan, Russia and even the United States already offer vivid interpretations of this. The essence of a democratic system is not demonstrated through the election of a good leader or the best leader, but in the establishment of a firm and solid system that provides the people with a choice, and that follows certain procedures to protect and optimize the system in order to select competent and capable individuals to serve the people. Chen Shui-bian can be replaced by Ma Ying-jeou; Vladimir Putin can never become another Joseph Stalin; Barack Obama, the first black US President, has finally taken over the White House, but he could still step down if he doesn’t perform well.

It is conceivable that China’s future democratic transformation will not result in a reduction of the power of the Communist Party. On the contrary, the various resources the Party has seized throughout the years may even enable it to enjoy a string of victories in future elections. Those who endorse democratic values must be prepared for such an eventuality. Striving for the rationalization and continuous optimization of the democratic “process” is the key, and the emphasis on choosing the best person has become an outmoded concept.

(Translated by Isabella Lam)