——以九八组党、台湾民进党的民主实践为例

作者：郑存柱

“背叛”“投降”，这样的帽子扣下来，声音很响，分量很轻。指责中国民主党的政协提案就是投降的人，其实从没把自己的逻辑想清楚。照他们的说法，凡是踏进对方设定的场子、用对方的规矩说话，就等于承认对方、就等于缴械。可这套逻辑一旦当真，第一个被它判成“叛徒”的，恰恰是中国民主党自己——而且要从它出生的那一天算起。

1998年，中国民主党在浙江公开成立。那年6月25日，王有才、王东海、林辉几个人做了一件当时惊天动地的事：他们没有转入地下，没有搞秘密串联，而是堂堂正正地拿着材料，走进浙江省民政厅，按照中华人民共和国的《社会团体登记管理条例》，申请注册成立一个反对党。朱虞夫，就是那批人组党人士之一。请问，照“投降论”的算法，这算什么？向民政厅递交注册申请，不就等于承认了中华人民共和国政府的合法性、承认了它那套登记制度吗？那么中国民主党从娘胎里就是“投降派”，这话说得出口吗？

荒唐。谁都看得明白，1998年那一纸注册申请，不是磕头，是逼宫。它把一个尖锐的问题顶到共产党鼻子底下：你的宪法白纸黑字写着结社自由，你的法律写着社团可以登记，那你到底认不认自己的法？允许，就等于承认反对党合法；不允许，就等于当众撕毁自己的宪法和法律。正因为这一招打在要害上，当局才那样惊慌，才把王有才、徐文立、秦永敏一个个重判入狱，一判就是十一年、十二年、十三年。用现有的合法渠道去斗争，从来不是软弱，恰恰是最叫专制难堪的锋利。为这条路坐过牢的人，后来者没有谁有资格对他们骂一句“投降”。

把眼光投向海峡对岸，同一个道理更是活生生地摆在那里。民进党的党纲白纸黑字写着“建立主权独立自主的台湾共和国”——这就是台独。“中华民国”这个国号、这部宪法，本就是台独要否定、要取代的东西。可民进党是怎么做的？它派人去参加中华民国从村里长到总统的各级选举。陈水扁、蔡英文、赖清德，一个个举起右手，宣誓效忠《中华民国宪法》，然后坐进他们纲领上明明要废掉的那个国家的总统府。有谁跳出来骂民进党“背叛台独”“向国民党投降”？没有。因为凡是有点政治常识的人都懂：参选，是借现成的合法平台去争民心、扩地盘、一寸一寸地改造这个体制，而不是在选票上盖个章、承认现状万岁。民进党正是靠这条“体制内”的路，从戒严令下被追捕的地下党，一路走到执政。当年它若因为“参选中华民国就是承认中华民国”而拒绝参选，到今天也不过还是街头一群喊口号的人，永远进不了那个能拍板的房间。

从1998年走进民政厅，到今天的政协提案，中国民主党走的是同一条路，认的是同一个理：走上对方的舞台，绝不等于认同对方的剧本。要求进入政协，不是承认现在这个政协合格——恰恰相反，这份提案通篇都在骂它“名存实亡”“橡皮图章”，要求把席位交给真正的反对派，要求委员言论免责，要求会议开门见光。这不是下跪，是把民运所追求的目标直接拍在对方桌上。

说到底，投降是放弃目标，不是更换手段。真投降，是承认对方对、把自己的诉求咽回肚子里。可这份提案从头到尾死咬宪政民主、死咬多元监督，一个字都没让。它“退”的，只是“斗争非得在体制外、非得摆出对抗的架势才算数”这一种执念。把手段的灵活骂成立场的背叛，是把民运的成败押在姿态够不够悲壮上，而不是押在到底能不能撬动这块铁板上。曼德拉既坐过牢，也走上过谈判桌；东欧的反对派既印过地下刊物，也坐上过圆桌。哪一次从专制到民主的转身，是单靠体制外死磕就一步到位的？关键时刻，总得有人肯坐到桌前，把口号变成能落地的条款。

当然，走进体制是有风险的——会被利用，会被收编，会被拿去当“民主”的花瓶。这些警惕都对，都必要。但“提防风险”和“张口就骂投降”，是两码事。中国民主党的政协提案是不是背叛，标尺只有一根：它让你离目标更近，还是更远？它替不同的声音撬开了一道缝，还是替专制补上了裂痕？

1998年那一纸注册申请，没有换来一个合法政党，却把共产党“违宪违法”四个字钉在了历史的耻辱柱上。今天提出共产党不可能接受的政协提案，又一次把这个政权逼到“认不认自己的法”的墙角。这从来不是缴枪，而是换一个战场，接着打同一场仗。

编辑：冯仍 校对：冯仍 翻译：戈冰

The CPPCC Proposals of the China Democracy Party Are by No Means a Surrender

——Taking the 1998 Party Formation and the Democratic Practice of Taiwan’s Democratic Progressive Party as Examples

By Zheng Cunzhu

Labels like “betrayal” and “surrender” are slapped on with a resounding roar, yet their actual weight is incredibly light. Those who accuse the China Democracy Party’s CPPCC (Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference) proposals of being a surrender have, in fact, never thought through their own logic. According to their line of reasoning, anyone who steps into a venue set up by the opponent and speaks according to the opponent’s rules is equivalent to recognizing the opponent and laying down their arms. However, once this logic is taken seriously, the very first to be judged as a “traitor” by it would be none other than the China Democracy Party itself—and that would have to be counted from the very day it was born.

In 1998, the China Democracy Party was openly established in Zhejiang. On June 25 of that year, Wang Youcai, Wang Donghai, and Lin Hui did something that was earth-shattering at the time: they did not go underground, nor did they engage in clandestine networking; instead, they uprightly and honorably took their materials, walked into the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Civil Affairs, and applied to register and establish an opposition party in accordance with the “Regulations on the Registration and Administration of Social Organizations” of the People’s Republic of China. Zhu Yufu was precisely one of the party organizers among that group of people. May I ask, according to the calculation of the “surrender theory,” what does this count as? Submitting a registration application to the Department of Civil Affairs—does that not equal recognizing the legitimacy of the government of the People’s Republic of China and recognizing its system of registration? If so, then the China Democracy Party has been a “surrenderist faction” straight from its mother’s womb—could anyone actually bring themselves to say such words?

Absurd. Anyone can see clearly that the single sheet of registration application in 1998 was not a kowtow, but a forced abdication. It thrust a sharp question right under the Communist Party’s nose: Your constitution writes in black and white the freedom of association, and your laws state that social organizations can be registered, so do you ultimately recognize your own laws or not? To allow it would equal recognizing the legitimacy of the opposition party; to disallow it would equal tearing up its own constitution and laws in public. It was precisely because this move struck at the vital point that the authorities panicked so severely, sentencing Wang Youcai, Xu Wenli, and Qin Yongmin to heavy prison terms one by one, handing down sentences of eleven, twelve, and thirteen years. Utilizing existing legal channels to wage a struggle has never been weakness; on the contrary, it is the very sharpness that causes autocracy the greatest embarrassment. For those who have gone to prison for this path, no successor possesses the qualifications to hurl a single curse of “surrender” at them.

Turning one’s gaze to the opposite side of the strait, the exact same principle is placed there in a vivid and concrete manner. The party platform of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) states in black and white: “establish a sovereign, independent, and autonomous Republic of Taiwan”—this is Taiwan independence. The national title “Republic of China” and this constitution were originally the very things that Taiwan independence sought to negate and replace. Yet, what did the DPP do? It dispatched people to participate in the Republic of China’s elections at all levels, from village chiefs to the president. Chen Shui-bian, Tsai Ing-wen, and Lai Ching-te, one after another, raised their right hands, swore allegiance to the “Constitution of the Republic of China,” and then sat inside the presidential office of that very country which their platform explicitly aimed to abolish. Did anyone leap out to curse the DPP for “betraying Taiwan independence” or “surrendering to the Kuomintang”? No. Because anyone with a modicum of political common sense understands: participating in elections is borrowing a ready-made legal platform to vie for the hearts of the people, expand one’s territory, and transform this system inch by inch, rather than stamping a seal on a ballot and declaring “long live the status quo.” It was precisely by relying on this “within-the-system” path that the DPP walked all the way from being an underground party hunted under martial law to becoming the ruling party. Back then, if it had refused to run because “participating in the elections of the Republic of China means recognizing the Republic of China,” it would still be nothing more than a crowd of people shouting slogans on the street today, never able to enter that room where final decisions are made.

From walking into the Department of Civil Affairs in 1998 to today’s CPPCC proposals, the China Democracy Party has walked the same path and recognized the same principle: stepping onto the opponent’s stage by no means equals identifying with the opponent’s script. Demanding entry into the CPPCC is not recognizing the current CPPCC as qualified—on the contrary, the entirety of this proposal is cursing it as “existing in name only” and a “rubber stamp,” demanding that seats be handed over to the real opposition, demanding immunity for committee members’ speeches, and demanding that meetings be opened to the light of day. This is not kneeling; it is slapping the goals pursued by the democracy movement directly onto the opponent’s table.

In the final analysis, surrender means giving up the goal, not changing the means. A true surrender is admitting that the opponent is right and swallowing one’s own demands back into the stomach. Yet, from beginning to end, this proposal tightly grips constitutional democracy and clings fiercely to pluralistic oversight, without yielding a single word. What it “retreats” from is merely the obsession that “struggle must be outside the system and must strike a confrontational posture to count.” Cursing the flexibility of means as a betrayal of stance is staking the success or failure of the democracy movement on whether the posture is tragic and heroic enough, rather than on whether it can actually pry open this slab of iron. Mandela not only went to prison but also walked to the negotiation table; the opposition in Eastern Europe not only printed underground publications but also sat at the round table. Which turn from autocracy to democracy has ever been achieved in a single step solely by fighting to the bitter end outside the system? At the critical moment, someone must always be willing to sit at the table and turn slogans into clauses that can hit the ground.

Of course, stepping into the system carries risks—being utilized, being co-opted, and being used as a vase for “democracy.” These warnings are all correct and all necessary. However, “being vigilant against risks” and “opening one’s mouth just to shout ‘surrender'” are two entirely different matters. As to whether the CPPCC proposal of the China Democracy Party is a betrayal, there is only one yardstick: does it bring you closer to the goal, or further away? Has it pried open a crack for different voices, or has it mended a fissure for the autocracy?

That single sheet of registration application in 1998 did not win a legal political party, but it nailed the words “violating the constitution and breaking the law” regarding the Communist Party onto the pillar of historical shame. Proposing a CPPCC proposal today that the Communist Party cannot possibly accept forces this regime into the corner of “whether or not it recognizes its own laws” once again. This has never been laying down arms, but rather changing to another battlefield to continue fighting the exact same war.

Editor: Feng Reng Proofreader: Feng Reng Translator: Ge Bing