——专访中国公民陈西先生

陈西借“文明对话国际日”倡议推动公务员财产公开，并通过《对话——教育的目的》一文阐述其核心观点：社会进步源于自由、平等、理性的公共对话，而非单向服从与权威灌输。

记者：林小龙（美国洛杉矶）受访人：陈西（中国贵州贵阳）采访方式：远程视频连线采访时间：2026年6月1日林小龙：陈先生您好，感谢您接受《在野党》的采访。首先想请您谈谈，为什么今年“文明对话国际日”活动会选择“推动公务员财务公开”作为主题？陈西：因为这是一个关系到国家治理和社会公平的重要议题。世界上绝大多数国家早已建立公务员财产公开制度，而中国至今没有通过相关法律。我们认为，既然中国提出了“文明对话国际日”，那么最应该讨论的就是中国自身尚未解决的重要公共问题。

林小龙：您在公告中提到，全世界已有156个国家实行相关制度，中国却长期缺位。您认为症结在哪里？陈西：问题就在于缺乏公开讨论和社会监督。一个良法如果三十多年都无法通过，就说明立法过程中存在某些阻碍。具体是什么阻碍，恰恰需要社会各界公开对话，共同寻找答案。

林小龙：您还提到“良法未到，恶法先来”。这里指的是什么？陈西：我指的是近期关于贪污贿赂案件适用法律解释的调整。在许多民众看来，反腐标准被提高，而财务公开制度却迟迟没有建立。这种反差容易引发公众质疑，因此更需要公开讨论。

林小龙：您为什么特别强调“对话”二字？陈西：因为我认为，对话是文明社会最重要的能力。一个社会如果失去了对话，就只能剩下命令和服从。对话不仅是解决问题的方法，更是发现问题的方法。

林小龙：在您的文章《对话——教育的目的》中，您提出教育的目的不是“听话”，而是培养“对话能力”。这个观点是如何形成的？陈西：我长期观察中国教育和社会运行方式后发现，我们的教育往往更重视服从，而不是思考。学生习惯于寻找标准答案，却缺少提出问题和讨论问题的训练。我认为这是教育最值得反思的地方。

林小龙：您在文中引用了苏格拉底、柏拉图、维特根斯坦、布伯以及哈贝马斯等思想家。您认为他们共同说明了什么？陈西：他们都在说明一个道理：人类通过语言和对话认识世界。智慧不是灌输出来的，而是在交流和碰撞中形成的。真正的教育应该帮助人学会思考，而不是学会服从。

林小龙：您提出“民主不是投票，而是对话讨论；法治不是讲武力，而是讲道理”。能否进一步解释？陈西：很多人把民主简单理解为投票，其实投票只是结果。真正重要的是投票之前的讨论过程。同样，法治不是谁权力大谁说了算，而是在规则下讲事实、讲证据、讲道理。

林小龙：您在文章中把“对话教育”和“听话教育”进行了鲜明对比。您认为两者最大的区别是什么？陈西：最大的区别在于是否承认人的主体性。对话教育承认每个人都有思考和表达的权利；听话教育则更强调服从和等级秩序。

林小龙：有些人认为强调秩序和稳定并没有错，您怎么看？陈西：秩序当然重要，但秩序不应该成为压制人的理由。真正稳定的社会，应该建立在理性沟通和相互尊重基础上，而不是建立在沉默和恐惧基础上。

林小龙：您在文章中提到“沉默是金”的文化传统，并认为这种观念可能限制社会进步。为什么？陈西：因为很多问题恰恰是在沉默中积累起来的。一个社会如果没有公开讨论机制，小问题会变成大问题。只有允许不同声音存在，社会才有自我修复能力。

林小龙：您认为中国当前最需要的是什么？陈西：最需要的是建立公开、平等、理性的对话平台。无论是公务员财务公开，还是教育改革，还是社会治理，都需要对话，而不是回避问题。

林小龙：最后，请您用一句话概括今年“文明对话国际日”活动最想传递的信息。陈西：文明的本质不是统一声音，而是让不同声音能够和平、平等地对话。

林小龙：感谢陈先生接受《在野党》远程视频专访。陈西：谢谢《在野党》，也谢谢所有关注公共事务的朋友。

编辑：冯仍 校对：冯仍 翻译：周敏

Dialogue is the Starting Point of Democracy

—— An Exclusive Interview with Chinese Citizen Mr. Chen Xi

Chen Xi used the initiative of the “International Day of Dialogue among Civilizations” to promote the disclosure of civil servants’ property, and expounded his core viewpoint through the article Dialogue — The Purpose of Education: Social progress stems from free, equal, and rational public dialogue, rather than one-way obedience and authoritative indoctrination.

Journalist: Lin Xiaolong (Los Angeles, USA) Interviewee: Chen Xi (Guiyang, Guizhou, China) Interview Method: Remote video connection interview Time: June 1, 2026

Lin Xiaolong: Hello, Mr. Chen. Thank you for accepting the interview with The Opposition Party (Zai Ye Dang). First, I would like to ask you to talk about why this year’s “International Day of Dialogue among Civilizations” activity chose “promoting the disclosure of civil servants’ financial status” as the theme?

Chen Xi: Because this is an important issue related to national governance and social fairness. the vast majority of countries in the world have already established property disclosure systems for civil servants, while China has not yet passed relevant laws. We believe that since China proposed the “International Day of Dialogue among Civilizations,” then what should be discussed most is China’s own important public issues that have not yet been resolved.

Lin Xiaolong: You mentioned in the announcement that 156 countries in the world have already implemented relevant systems, but China has been absent for a long time. Where do you think the crux of the problem lies?

Chen Xi: The problem lies precisely in the lack of public discussion and social supervision. If a good law cannot be passed for more than thirty years, it shows that there are certain obstacles in the legislative process. What exactly those obstacles are is precisely what needs public dialogue from all walks of life to jointly find the answer.

Lin Xiaolong: You also mentioned “Before the good law arrives, the bad law comes first.” What does this refer to?

Chen Xi: I am referring to the recent adjustment of the legal interpretation applied to embezzlement and bribery cases. In the eyes of many citizens, the anti-corruption standards have been raised, while the financial disclosure system has delayed being established. This contrast easily triggers public skepticism, therefore public discussion is needed even more.

Lin Xiaolong: Why do you place special emphasis on the word “dialogue”?

Chen Xi: Because I believe that dialogue is the most important capability of a civilized society. If a society loses dialogue, only commands and obedience will be left. Dialogue is not only a method to solve problems, but also a method to discover problems.

Lin Xiaolong: In your article Dialogue — The Purpose of Education, you propose that the purpose of education is not “being obedient” (listening to words), but cultivating “dialogue capability.” How was this viewpoint formed?

Chen Xi: After long-term observation of China’s education and social operation methods, I found that our education often attaches more importance to obedience rather than thinking. Students are used to looking for standard answers, but lack training in raising questions and discussing questions. I think this is the place most worthy of reflection in education.

Lin Xiaolong: In the article, you cited thinkers such as Socrates, Plato, Wittgenstein, Buber, and Habermas. What do you think they jointly illustrate?

Chen Xi: They are all illustrating one truth: Human beings understand the world through language and dialogue. Wisdom is not indoctrinated, but is formed during communication and collision. True education should help people learn to think, rather than learn to obey.

Lin Xiaolong: You propose that “Democracy is not voting, but dialogue and discussion; the rule of law is not talking about military force, but talking about reason.” Could you further explain?

Chen Xi: Many people simply understand democracy as voting; in fact, voting is only the result. What is truly important is the discussion process before voting. Similarly, the rule of law is not about whoever has greater power having the final say, but about talking about facts, talking about evidence, and talking about reason under the rules.

Lin Xiaolong: In your article, you made a sharp contrast between “dialogue education” and “obedience education.” What do you think is the biggest difference between the two?

Chen Xi: The biggest difference lies in whether the subjectivity of human beings is recognized. Dialogue education recognizes that everyone has the right to think and express; obedience education emphasizes obedience and hierarchical order more.

Lin Xiaolong: Some people think that emphasizing order and stability is not wrong, how do you see it?

Chen Xi: Order is certainly important, but order should not become a reason to suppress people. A truly stable society should be built on the basis of rational communication and mutual respect, rather than built on the basis of silence and fear.

Lin Xiaolong: You mentioned the cultural tradition of “Silence is gold” in your article, and believe that this concept may limit social progress. Why?

Chen Xi: Because many problems are accumulated precisely in silence. If a society does not have a public discussion mechanism, small problems will become big problems. Only by allowing different voices to exist can society have self-repairing capability.

Lin Xiaolong: What do you think China needs most at present?

Chen Xi: What is needed most is to establish an open, equal, and rational dialogue platform. Whether it is the disclosure of civil servants’ financial status, or educational reform, or social governance, dialogue is needed, rather than avoiding problems.

Lin Xiaolong: Finally, please use one sentence to summarize the most important message that this year’s “International Day of Dialogue among Civilizations” activity wants to convey.

Chen Xi: The essence of civilization is not unifying voices, but allowing different voices to be able to have peaceful and equal dialogue.

Lin Xiaolong: Thank you, Mr. Chen, for accepting the remote video exclusive interview with The Opposition Party.

Chen Xi: Thank you, The Opposition Party, and thank you to all friends who pay attention to public affairs.

Editor: Feng Reng Proofreader: Feng Reng Translator: Zhou Min