作者：李彬妹
直到今天，仍然有人问我，为什么总是谈论自由。
有人觉得，自由只是政治学里的概念；有人认为，自由离普通人的生活很遥远；还有人觉得，只要经济能够发展，普通人的生活能够维持，谈论自由似乎没有太大的意义。
但这些年的经历让我越来越明白，自由从来都不是一句抽象的口号，它与每一个普通人的生活息息相关。
真正失去过选择的人，才会明白选择有多么珍贵；真正经历过沉默的人，才知道说话为什么重要；真正面对过权力的人，才会理解法律为什么必须约束权力。
很多时候，我们习惯把自由理解为一种可以做任何事情的权利。事实上，现代社会所说的自由，并不是毫无边界的放任，而是在法律保护之下，每一个人都拥有按照自己意愿生活的权利。
这种权利，体现在生活的方方面面。
它意味着，你可以表达自己的观点，而不用因为不同意见受到惩罚；它意味着，你可以依法维护自己的权益，而不用担心因为身份普通就失去公平；它意味着，当公共权力影响你的生活时，你能够通过法律、媒体、社会监督等方式维护自己的合法权益，而不是只能默默承受。
过去很长一段时间，我从未认真思考这些问题。我和很多普通人一样，把更多精力放在家庭、工作和生活上，总觉得制度离自己很远，只要安安稳稳过日子，一切都会顺其自然。
后来我才发现，制度并不是一件抽象的事情，它会影响一个人的工作、家庭、教育、医疗、言论，甚至影响人生中每一个重要决定。
也正因为如此，我开始重新认识法治。
真正的法治，不只是制定法律，更重要的是所有人，包括掌握公共权力的人，都必须受到法律约束。法律不能只是要求普通人守法，更应该首先要求掌权者依法行政。
如果法律只约束普通人，而不能约束权力，那么法律便很难真正体现公平。
现代民主制度之所以强调司法独立，并不是为了让司法高于政府，而是为了确保任何权力都不能凌驾于法律之上。当普通人与公共机关发生争议时，法院能够依据法律作出独立判断，而不是受到行政力量影响，这样普通人才会相信，公平不仅存在于法律条文里，也能够落实到现实生活中。
除了司法，我也越来越关注新闻自由的重要意义。
很多人认为，新闻只是报道每天发生的事情。但实际上，新闻监督更重要的作用，是让公共权力始终处于社会的关注之下。当媒体能够调查事实、公开讨论公共政策，当不同观点能够在社会上充分交流，人们才能获得更多信息，也才能形成更加理性的判断。
一个社会如果只有一种声音，人们往往很难全面了解事情的真相；而当不同观点都能够公开表达，社会反而更容易接近事实。
我开始关注台湾的发展，也是因为在那里，我看到了这种制度安排带来的变化：不同政党之间可以公开竞争，媒体可以持续监督政府，社会团体能够积极参与公共事务，普通民众也能够通过合法渠道表达自己的意见。
当然，这并不意味着台湾没有问题。民主社会同样存在争议、冲突和分歧。但真正让我感受到希望的，是那里解决问题的方式。
当政策引发争议，人们可以公开讨论；当政府受到质疑，媒体能够持续追踪；当行政行为涉嫌违法，法院可以依法审查；当人民对执政者不满意，还能够通过选举和平更替政府。
我逐渐明白，民主制度真正值得珍惜的地方，并不是它能够避免所有错误，而是它能够不断纠正错误。
一个社会是否真正进步，并不取决于是否从来不会犯错，而在于犯错之后，是否拥有承认错误、纠正错误和防止再次犯错的制度能力。
这些年，我越来越相信，一个国家真正的稳定，并不是建立在人们保持沉默之上，而是建立在人民愿意信任制度之上。
而这种信任，并不是依靠宣传形成的，而是依靠公平、公正、公开一点一点积累起来的。
当每一个普通人相信法律能够保护自己，当每一种不同声音都能够被社会听见，当每一项公共权力都必须接受监督，人们自然会对未来充满信心。
自由并不会削弱一个国家，相反，它能够让社会拥有更多创造力，也能够让人民更加愿意承担责任。因为只有受到尊重的人，才更愿意尊重他人；只有拥有权利的人，才更懂得珍惜权利；只有生活在法治之中的公民，才更愿意共同维护社会秩序。
今天，我依然相信，自由不是少数人的特权，而应当成为每一个普通人的基本权利；民主不是一种遥不可及的理想，而是一种不断完善社会的制度实践；法治不是一句简单的口号，而是所有公共权力都必须遵守的共同规则。
我向往的，并不是一个没有分歧的社会，而是一个允许分歧存在、允许不同声音表达、允许人民监督政府、允许制度不断自我完善的社会。
因为我始终相信，一个真正文明的国家，最大的力量并不来自权力本身，而来自人民发自内心的信任。而这种信任，只能建立在自由、法治与民主共同构成的制度基础之上。这也是我始终珍视这些价值，并愿意不断讲述、不断思考、不断表达的原因。
编辑：胡丽莉 校对：熊辩 翻译：沈美花
Freedom Has Never Been a Mere Slogan
Author: Li Binmei
Even to this day, there are still people who ask me why I constantly talk about freedom.
Some feel that freedom is merely a concept within political science; some believe that freedom is far removed from the lives of ordinary people; and others think that as long as the economy can develop and ordinary people can maintain their livelihoods, discussing freedom seems to hold no significant meaning.
However, my experiences over these years have made me understand more and more that freedom has never been an abstract slogan; it is inextricably linked to the life of every single ordinary person.
Only those who have truly lost their choices can understand how precious choice truly is; only those who have truly experienced enforced silence can know why speaking out is vital; only those who have truly confronted power can comprehend why the law must constrain that power.
More often than not, we are accustomed to understanding freedom as a right to do anything one pleases. In reality, the freedom spoken of in modern society is not a form of license devoid of boundaries, but rather the right of every individual to live according to their own will under the protection of the law.
This right manifests itself in every aspect of life.
It means that you can express your own views without being punished for holding a differing opinion; it means that you can safeguard your rights and interests in accordance with the law without worrying about losing fairness simply because your social status is ordinary; it means that when public power impacts your life, you are able to defend your legitimate rights and interests through channels such as the law, the media, and social oversight, rather than being forced to endure it in silence.
For a long time in the past, I never seriously reflected on these questions. Like many ordinary people, I placed more of my energy on family, work, and daily life, always feeling that the system was far removed from myself, and that as long as I lived a stable and peaceful life, everything would naturally take its course.
Later, I discovered that the system is not an abstract matter; it affects a person’s work, family, education, healthcare, speech, and even influences every momentous decision in one’s life.
And it was precisely because of this that I began to recognize the rule of law anew.
Genuine rule of law does not merely consist of enacting laws; more importantly, it requires that all people, including those who wield public power, must be constrained by the law. The law cannot simply demand that ordinary people abide by it; it should, first and foremost, require those in power to exercise administration in accordance with the law.
If the law only constrains ordinary people but fails to constrain power, then it becomes very difficult for the law to truly manifest fairness.
The reason why modern democratic systems emphasize judicial independence is not to place the judiciary above the government, but rather to ensure that no power can place itself above the law. When disputes arise between ordinary people and public authorities, the courts can make independent judgments based upon the law, rather than being influenced by administrative forces. Only in this way will ordinary people believe that fairness exists not just in legal texts, but can also be realized in real life.
Aside from the judiciary, I have also paid increasing attention to the vital significance of freedom of the press.
Many people believe that news is merely about reporting what happens every day. In reality, however, the more critical function of journalistic oversight is to ensure that public power remains perpetually under the scrutiny of society. Only when the media can investigate facts and openly debate public policies, and only when different viewpoints can fully circulate within society, can people acquire more information and thus form more rational judgments.
If a society has only one single voice, it is often very difficult for people to comprehensively understand the truth of matters; conversely, when differing perspectives can be openly expressed, society is instead more likely to approach the truth.
I began to pay attention to the development of Taiwan precisely because there, I witnessed the transformations brought about by this kind of institutional arrangement: different political parties can compete openly, the media can continuously supervise the government, civil groups can actively participate in public affairs, and ordinary citizens can also express their opinions through legitimate channels.
Of course, this does not mean that Taiwan is free of problems. A democratic society likewise harbors controversies, conflicts, and disagreements. But what truly allows me to feel hope is the manner in which problems are resolved there.
When a policy triggers controversy, people can debate it openly; when the government is questioned, the media can continuously follow up; when an administrative action is suspected of violating the law, the courts can review it according to the law; when the people are dissatisfied with those in power, they can furthermore replace the government peacefully through elections.
I have gradually come to understand that the place where a democratic system truly deserves to be cherished is not that it can avoid all mistakes, but that it possesses the capacity to continuously rectify mistakes.
Whether a society makes genuine progress does not depend on whether it never commits an error, but rather on whether, after an error is made, it possesses the institutional capacity to acknowledge the mistake, correct the mistake, and prevent the mistake from occurring again.
Over these years, I have come to believe increasingly that the true stability of a nation is not built upon the silence of its people, but rather upon the willingness of the people to trust the system.
Moreover, this kind of trust is not formed by relying on propaganda; rather, it is accumulated bit by bit through fairness, justice, and transparency.
When every ordinary person believes that the law can protect them, when every different voice can be heard by society, and when every exercise of public power must accept supervision, people will naturally be filled with confidence regarding the future.
Freedom does not weaken a nation; on the contrary, it enables a society to possess greater creativity and makes the people more willing to assume responsibility. This is because only individuals who are respected will be more willing to respect others; only those who possess rights will better understand how to cherish rights; and only citizens living within the rule of law will be more willing to jointly maintain social order.
Today, I still believe that freedom is not the privilege of a minority, but ought to become the fundamental right of every ordinary person; democracy is not a remote and unattainable ideal, but an institutional practice that continuously refines society; the rule of law is not a simple slogan, but a common rule that all public power must observe.
What I yearn for is not a society devoid of disagreements, but rather a society that allows disagreements to exist, allows different voices to be expressed, allows the people to supervise the government, and allows the system to continuously perfect itself from within.
For I have always believed that the greatest strength of a truly civilized nation does not derive from power itself, but from the trust that comes from the bottom of the people’s hearts. And this trust can only be built upon the institutional foundation jointly formed by freedom, the rule of law, and democracy. This is also the very reason why I perpetually treasure these values, and am willing to continuously narrate, continuously reflect, and continuously express them.
Editor: Hu Lili
Proofreader: Xiong Bian
Translator: Shen Meihua
