记者:张致君
2026年7月5日，一场聚焦中国未来政治转型的学术座谈会在美国加州自由雕塑公园举行。本次活动以《三民主义能否救中国》为题，邀请八九学运亲历者、文献学者、网络“孙文学校”创办人封从德博士担任主讲。多位海外异议学者、民运人士及年轻一代华人到场，围绕“三民主义“政治思想的当代启示、中国未来制度承接框架以及政治转型的潜在风险展开了深度研讨。座谈会所在地自由雕塑公园，地处加州内陆荒漠，因长期展示“六四”、香港抗议及中国人权议题的大型地标性雕塑，已成为海外许多华人追求自由的精神坐标。与以往聚焦于历史伤痛纪念的集会不同，本次座谈会在漫天黄沙与具有强烈批判色彩的装置间，呈现出一种冷峻的学术思辨氛围。
（自由雕塑公园陈维明（中）在现场发言）
自由雕塑公园陈维明先生表示，自由雕塑公园未来除了持续用雕塑这种艺术展现形式反抗暴政，也会逐渐搭建民主政治学术研讨会，讨论主题也不仅从历史清算与政治抗议等“解构性叙事”出发，同样会增加对宪法文本、过渡期合法性来源等“建构性制度设计”的理性探讨。会议先对7月2日在联合国门前为抗议中共对藏人压迫而自焚的Pawo Lobga Rangzen悼哀。
在主旨发言中，封从德首先表示该次研讨会的”救国“应当再”重建民国“之后，提出用”三民主义，四六宪法，以建民国，以进大同“的政治行动第一步，将“三民主义”（民族、民权、民生）置于现代国家建构的脉络中进行诠释。他认为，三民主义并非历史陈迹，而是应对现代政治危机的“现成制度框架”。对中国历史的充分认识，不被中共统战下的思想与谎言历史所污染至关重要，这会影响未来中国政治反对派道路的判断力。
他在会中详细分析了中共在海外民主运动中的统战思想与语言叙事，解释了中共对反对运动中的词汇污染，例如他解释”和理非“中的”非暴力“是严重被曲解的，”非暴力“并不代表放弃”武力革命“，但中共将“武力”与“暴力”的含义混淆，暴力是非法的，而武力是合法的，中共的统战叙事就是将反对派合法的叙事方式变成非法叙事方式，进一步引起反对派内部分裂;再例如他指出，反对派不要落入”统独叙事“，这也是中共分裂反对派的统战战略之一。
封从德尖锐地指出，后极权时代中国面临的最大危机，并非“如何打破旧体制”，而是“旧体制崩溃后的权力真空与社会失序”。 他借用“普京化”一词，警告转型初期因制度设计缺陷导致强人政治复辟、民主形式化的危险。他在会中提到了中共的“沉船计划“，指出中共在全球所部署的经济、科技等战略部署不仅仅是在扩张中共在国际上的影响力，更是在为其政权崩溃后的政权部署，中共将现有大量资金与技术资源外移后，得以保留中共的政治势力，再分裂中国，制造混乱，中共自己占据中国现在疆域板块中资源最富饶的沿海等枢纽区域。
“三民主义的精髓在于其整体性。民权保障自由，民生约束资本，民族确立认同。这套互为表里的架构，能有效对冲转型期极易出现的流氓无产阶级民粹主义或威权政客的窃国倒退。”封从德表示。
作为“民国宪政法统”的坚定捍卫者，封从德在会上多次提到1946年通过的《中华民国宪法》（“四六宪法”）。他主张，该宪法由当年全中国各党派共同制定，具备无可辩驳的历史正统性。在未来转型期，直接宣布“回归四六宪法”并将其作为临时宪法，可以最大程度降低制宪成本，避免社会因“重新发明轮子”而陷入分裂。
然而，这一具有鲜明立场的“回归法统论”，在现场参与者内部随即引发了激烈的路线交锋。支持法统派的人士在发言中主张“继承资产”，认为历史法统是成本最低、最能凝聚共识的平稳过渡工具。
新宪派与联邦派则对该路径的可操作性提出质疑。他们指出，“四六宪法”在政治现实、地缘政治及国际承认层面存在巨大的历史断层，面对当下错综复杂的两岸关系与地方治理，其过渡机制设计显得过于理想化，缺乏现实对接的抓手。值得注意的是，本次座谈会并未流于枯燥的历史复述，而是展现了强烈的时代感。在互动环节中，与会者就两岸体制差异、以及“三民主义在数字经济背景下的再解释”等前沿议题展开了思想激荡。针对年轻人提出“如何将三民主义推广和三民主义在现代国际关系与中台局势中是否还有受众”这一隐忧，封从德给予了积极回应。他赞同并鼓励年轻一代打破意识形态框架，从历史文献中汲取关于“三民主义“运用的智慧，用现代政治经济学语言向年轻世代重新阐释。
主办方透露，未来自由雕塑公园将继续推出围绕“中国政治”的系列深度研讨活动，将这一思考持续引向深入。
Feng Congde Discusses the “Three Principles of the People” at Liberty Sculpture Park, Focusing on the Path of Legal Continuity and Constitutional Deliberation
Reporter: Zhang Zhijun
On July 5, 2026, an academic seminar focusing on China’s future political transition was held at the Liberty Sculpture Park in California, USA. Titled “Can the Three Principles of the People Save China?”, the event invited Dr. Feng Congde, an eyewitness of the 1989 Student Movement, archival scholar, and founder of the online “Sun Yat-sen School,” to serve as the keynote speaker. Multiple overseas dissident scholars, democracy activists, and younger-generation Chinese attended the event, engaging in in-depth discussions surrounding the contemporary enlightenment of the “Three Principles of the People” political thought, the structural framework for China’s future institutional succession, and the potential risks of political transition.
The Liberty Sculpture Park, where the seminar took place, is situated in the inland desert of California. Because of its long-term exhibition of large, landmark sculptures concerning “June Fourth,” Hong Kong protests, and Chinese human rights issues, it has become a spiritual coordinate for many overseas Chinese pursuing freedom. Different from past gatherings that focused on commemorating historical trauma, this seminar, amidst the vast blowing sand and the intensely critical installations, presented a sober atmosphere of academic deliberation.
(Chen Weiming [center] of Liberty Sculpture Park speaking at the scene)
Mr. Chen Weiming of Liberty Sculpture Park stated that in the future, in addition to continuously using sculpture as an artistic form of expression to resist tyranny, the Liberty Sculpture Park will gradually establish academic seminars on democratic politics. The themes of discussion will not only proceed from “deconstructive narratives” such as historical reckoning and political protests, but will likewise increase rational discussions on “constructive institutional design,” such as constitutional texts and the sources of legitimacy during transition periods. The meeting first observed a moment of mourning for Pawo Lobga Rangzen, who committed self-immolation in front of the United Nations on July 2 to protest the Chinese Communist Party’s oppression of Tibetans.。
In his keynote speech, Feng Congde first stated that the “saving of the nation” in this seminar should follow the “reconstruction of the Republic of China,” proposing the first step of political action using the phrase “The Three Principles of the People, the 1946 Constitution, to build the Republic, to advance to the Great Unity,” placing the “Three Principles of the People” (Nationalism, Democracy, and Livelihood) within the context of modern state-building for interpretation. He contended that the Three Principles of the People are not historical relics, but rather a “ready-made institutional framework” for dealing with modern political crises. A full understanding of Chinese history, without being contaminated by the ideological and untruthful history under the Chinese Communist Party’s united front work, is of vital importance, as this will affect the judgment regarding the path of the future Chinese political opposition.
During the meeting, he analyzed in detail the CCP’s united front ideology and linguistic narrative within the overseas democratic movement, explaining the CCP’s contamination of vocabulary within the opposition movement. For instance, he explained that the concept of “non-violence” within “rational, peaceful, non-violent” (He-Li-Fei) is severely distorted; “non-violence” does not mean abandoning “armed revolution,” but the CCP confuses the meanings of “armed force” and “violence.” Violence is illegal, whereas armed force is legal. The CCP’s united front narrative aims precisely to turn the opposition’s legal narrative methods into illegal ones, further causing internal divisions within the opposition. As another example, he pointed out that the opposition must not fall into the “unification versus independence narrative,” which is also one of the CCP’s united front strategies to divide the opposition.
Feng Congde sharply pointed out that the greatest crisis China faces in the post-totalitarian era is not “how to break the old system,” but “the power vacuum and social disorder after the collapse of the old system.” Borrowing the term “Putinization,” he warned of the danger in the early stages of transition where flaws in institutional design lead to the restoration of strongman politics and the formalization of democracy. During the meeting, he mentioned the CCP’s “Shipwreck Plan,” pointing out that the economic, technological, and other strategic deployments positioned by the CCP globally are not merely expanding the CCP’s international influence, but are furthermore preparing deployments for the regime after its collapse. After shifting a large amount of existing capital and technological resources abroad, the CCP will be able to preserve its political forces, and then split China to create chaos, with the CCP itself occupying the hubs such as the coastal areas, which are the most resource-rich within China’s current territorial boundaries.
“The essence of the Three Principles of the People lies in its alignment as a whole. Democracy guarantees freedom, Livelihood restrains capital, and Nationalism establishes identity. This system of mutually reinforcing structures can effectively hedge against the lumpenproletariat populism or authoritarian politicians’ state-stealing retrogressions that are extremely prone to emerge during the transition period,” Feng Congde stated.
As a staunch defender of the “constitutional legal continuity of the Republic of China,” Feng Congde repeatedly mentioned during the meeting the Constitution of the Republic of China passed in 1946 (the “1946 Constitution”). He advocated that this constitution was jointly formulated by all political parties across China at that time, and thus possesses undeniable historical legitimacy. In the future transition period, directly declaring a “return to the 1946 Constitution” and utilizing it as an interim constitution could reduce the costs of constitutional drafting to the greatest extent, preventing society from falling into division due to “reinventing the wheel.”
However, this distinctly positioned “theory of returning to legal continuity” immediately triggered a fierce confrontation of political lines among the participants at the scene. Supporters of the legal continuity faction advocated for “inheriting assets” in their speeches, believing that historical legal continuity is the smooth transition tool with the lowest cost and the greatest capacity to build consensus.
The new-constitution faction and the federalist faction, on the other hand, raised questions regarding the feasibility of this path. They pointed out that the “1946 Constitution” suffers from a massive historical fault line at the levels of political reality, geopolitics, and international recognition; facing the current intricate cross-strait relations and local governance, its transitional mechanism design appears overly idealized, lacking practical leverage for real-world application.
Notably, this seminar did not degenerate into dull historical repetition, but instead exhibited a strong sense of the contemporary era. During the Q&A session, participants engaged in a brainstorm of ideas regarding cutting-edge topics such as the systemic differences across the Taiwan Strait and the “re-interpretation of the Three Principles of the People against the backdrop of the digital economy.” In response to the concern raised by young people regarding “how to promote the Three Principles of the People and whether the Three Principles of the People still have an audience in modern international relations and the China-Taiwan situation,” Feng Congde gave a positive response. He agreed with and encouraged the younger generation to break through ideological frameworks, draw wisdom concerning the application of the “Three Principles of the People” from historical archives, and re-explain it to the younger generation using the language of modern political economy.
As an attending researcher remarked, the significance of this political debate unfolding in the desert perhaps lies not in immediately producing a perfect plan for state-building, but rather in its preservation of a “theoretical oasis” for exploring China’s future possibilities outside the shadow of authoritarian politics. Although the legal continuity path of “the Three Principles of the People saving China” still faces numerous insurmountable chasms at the level of realpolitik, the construction of consensus within such communities and the collision of intellectual sparks are making intellectual anti-seismic preparations for future constitutional transition.
The organizers revealed that in the future, the Liberty Sculpture Park will continue to launch a series of in-depth seminar activities centered around “Chinese politics,” continuously guiding this reflection into greater depth.
Photography: Liu Ao Editor: Li Jing Proofreader: Mao Yiwei Translator: Ge Bing
