From Liberty Sculpture Park: A Nationwide Journey to Hold the CCP Accountable for the CCP Virus
Author: Huang Mingfa Editor: Han Li ExecutiveEditor: Liu Fang Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Liu Fang
In September 2025, the “Hold the CCP Accountable for the CCP Virus” motorcade, initiated by Chen Weiming and Jin Xiuhong, set out from Liberty Sculpture Park in California. Over 31 days, it traveled through more than 20 states and dozens of cities across the United States, calling for accountability and compensation for the CCP’s responsibility in the pandemic, and warning American society to stay alert to its infiltration and transnational repression. The convoy received warm welcomes and official recognition from Texas state officials and U.S. congressmen, who emphasized the importance of distinguishing between the CCP and the Chinese people.
On September 6, 2025, we launched the “Hold the CCP Accountable for the CCP Virus” national convoy campaign at Liberty Sculpture Park. Led by Mr. Chen Weiming and Ms. Jin Xiuhong, and joined by over 30 steadfast anti-dictatorship activists including myself, Zhang Zhenzhen, and Yuan Zegang, the campaign aimed to hold the CCP responsible for the pandemic, to urge the U.S. government to assist both American and Chinese victims in obtaining fair and lawful compensation, and to remind kind-hearted Americans to remain vigilant against the CCP’s infiltration and transnational oppression. We also hoped our American friends would support China’s progress toward rural self-governance and a decentralized, free, and democratic modern state—preventing another human tragedy like the CCP Virus.
The convoy departed on the afternoon of September 6 and concluded on October 7 in front of the Chinese Consulate in Los Angeles. With the theme “Xi Jinping Virus,” we traveled through more than 20 states and dozens of cities across the U.S. Among them, Washington, D.C.—the nation’s capital—left the deepest impression on me. Though its size and population are far smaller than New York City’s, Washington’s political influence is indisputable. This perhaps reflects the vision of America’s Founding Fathers in building a decentralized republic with limited government.
In Midland, Texas, we were warmly welcomed and praised by the city’s mayor and two Texas state legislators. Even more excitingly, on September 13, we were invited to Capitol Hill by Congressman Chris Smith, Co-chair of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China. Although he was unable to meet us in person due to a voting session, he sent the Commission’s Director to greet us on his behalf. We felt no disappointment—on the contrary, Congressman Smith later expressed deep regret and, on September 24, invited another influential lawmaker, Congressman John Robert Moolenaar, Chairman of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, to meet with us personally. On September 28, the Chief of Staff from Missouri also received our delegation warmly. These experiences clearly demonstrated that our campaign had earned genuine recognition from America’s political elite.
Ordinary Americans were even more supportive. Many stopped to take photos with us and gave us a thumbs-up in approval—gestures that allowed us to feel, up close, the kindness and warmth of the American people.
Our 31-day “Hold the CCP Accountable for the CCP Virus” campaign concluded successfully. We hope that through this journey, the American public will remember the CCP’s evil and the devastation caused by the virus, and recognize that the Chinese people are not the same as the Chinese Communist Party—Chinese citizens remain slaves under Xi Jinping’s tyranny. This is both a fact and the truth.
— In Memory of Zou Wei’s Father, an Indictment of the CCP’s Cruelty —Executive
Editor: Luo Zhifei Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Liu Fang
(Before his arrest, Zan Aizong (center) and Zou Wei (right) at Zhu Yufu’s home)
On October 6, 2025, Zhu Yufu of the China Democracy Party Zhejiang Committee learned that Zou Wei’s father, Zou Fuming, had passed away in Hangzhou. Zou Wei, who has been detained, was unable to attend his father’s funeral.
On the same day, the Zhejiang Committee of the China Democracy Party issued an obituary:
“Mr. Zou Fuming, father of China Democracy Party Zhejiang Committee member Zou Wei, passed away in Hangzhou at 6:35 p.m. on October 6, 2025, at the age of 87. Zou Wei was arrested on July 13, 2024, in Haining, Zhejiang Province, for holding a memorial at the Qiantang River to mourn Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo. On July 20 of the same year, he was criminally detained by the Gongshu Branch of the Hangzhou Public Security Bureau on suspicion of ‘picking quarrels and provoking trouble’ and has been held at the Gongshu District Detention Center in Hangzhou. On September 19, 2025, the Gongshu District Court held a trial but has not yet delivered a verdict. Zou Wei is unable to bid his father a final farewell or attend the funeral. This is hereby notified to colleagues and friends at home and abroad.”
Zou Wei was arrested and imprisoned by the Chinese Communist authorities for commemorating Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo at the sea. The case was heard in mid-September this year but remains unadjudicated.
Family and kinship are the most fundamental emotional bonds of society and an important measure of the rule of law and civilization. In democratic nations, even convicted prisoners usually retain the right to family contact and compassion, reflecting judicial independence, transparency, and institutional humanity.
However, while the Zhejiang democracy activist Zou Wei remains detained for political reasons, his father’s death prevented him from attending the funeral. This is not only a personal and family tragedy but also a reflection of the Chinese Communist regime’s systemic destruction of humanity, family rights, and social trust.
Zou Wei has long been engaged in democratic advocacy and constitutional reform. Because of his efforts to promote multiparty competition, he has repeatedly crossed the CCP’s political red lines. His inability to say farewell to his father exposes once again the CCP’s institutional logic—placing power above humanity and family ethics. Zou’s inability to attend the funeral is not an isolated incident but part of a long-standing, institutionalized pattern of political repression. The CCP habitually treats family ties as instruments of political control, depriving dissidents of family rights to exert psychological pressure and enforce isolation, thereby achieving long-term social control.
Historically, the CCP has consistently interfered in the families of political dissidents, forming a systematic pattern of oppression. Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo was denied the chance to visit his dying mother or bid her farewell. Human rights defender Huang Qi was not allowed to attend his mother’s funeral while in detention. Blind activist Chen Guangcheng was long under house arrest, and his family was strictly restricted during major life events. These cases show that the CCP uses the deprivation of family rights as a tool of political control—inflicting psychological pressure to weaken resistance and ensure absolute obedience. The core logic of its autocratic system is power supremacy and total submission. Family affection, as a symbol of individual autonomy, is perceived as a potential threat. Such institutionalized deprivation harms not only individual mental health but also erodes social trust and moral foundations, creating an enduring atmosphere of fear and insecurity across society.
The CCP’s interference with family and kinship extends beyond psychological manipulation and is codified through legal and administrative instruments. For example, the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China and the Regulations on Detention Centers grant authorities broad discretionary powers, making detainees’ visitation and communication rights— and their ability to attend major family events—subject to political judgment rather than judicial independence. This expansion of administrative power directly led to the Zou Wei incident and reflects the lack of judicial independence and effective human rights protection in China’s legal system. In such a system, when power and family ethics collide, kinship becomes the casualty of political control.
A comparison with democratic societies reveals a stark contrast. In countries governed by the rule of law, prisoners may apply for temporary release to attend funerals or visit critically ill relatives, and such applications are reviewed by independent judicial bodies, free from political interference. In the United States, the Federal Bureau of Prisons allows inmates to apply for compassionate leave to attend family funerals under supervision. In Japan, the Prison Act permits temporary leave for inmates to visit sick or deceased relatives. European countries similarly guarantee inmates’ family rights by law, ensuring that dignity cannot be arbitrarily stripped away. In Taiwan, even political detainees may be granted temporary leave for major family events. These practices show that institutional independence, legal restraint, and transparent review mechanisms are essential to protecting family rights and human dignity.
From a theoretical perspective, family rights are a direct manifestation of human nature and an important indicator of the relationship between power and law. In authoritarian states, power demands absolute obedience, whereas kinship represents individuality and independent emotion. Under a system that suppresses family rights, the regime subsumes family relations into its control mechanism to weaken dissidents’ psychological resilience. Psychological research shows that deprivation of family connection causes lasting trauma, loneliness, depression, and anxiety, harming not only the detainee but also their family members. Socially, such institutionalized control breeds fear, undermines social cohesion, and destroys trust. It leads to self-censorship, civic disengagement, and a long-term crisis of institutional trust that ultimately weakens national governance.
From the perspective of political philosophy, the right to family connection is an integral part of the social contract. The social contract theory holds that state power must exist to protect citizens’ rights and dignity. When the state deprives individuals of fundamental human rights—such as the right to family—it forfeits its moral and legal legitimacy. The Zou Wei case demonstrates how the CCP weaponizes detention to strip away family rights, violating the foundational principles of the social contract and turning state power into an instrument of oppression against personal freedom and family ethics.
From a sociological perspective, authoritarian deprivation of family rights produces deep structural consequences. Family is the cornerstone of social trust; when that trust is undermined, citizens’ confidence in public institutions collapses. The result is a chain reaction—self-censorship, civic apathy, and declining cooperation—culminating in a long-term crisis of social trust. This deterioration affects not only politics but also education, economy, and culture, eroding efficiency, creativity, and the vitality of society as a whole.
The Zou Wei incident also highlights the role of the international community in monitoring human rights abuses under the CCP regime. Protection of dissidents’ family rights is not merely a domestic legal issue but one of international law and global moral oversight. Judicial independence and the rule of law are fundamental to preventing such tragedies. Only when power is restrained can family rights be shielded from political manipulation. International legal mechanisms, public opinion, and NGOs can exert external pressure on authoritarian states, compelling them toward greater caution. Such pressure should not stop at condemnation but extend to sustained monitoring through reporting systems, UN inquiries, and global human rights frameworks.
Family rights are not only basic human rights but also a key indicator of a society’s civilization and legal maturity. If the CCP regime cannot guarantee these rights, its claimed “civilization” is nothing more than a façade. Zou Wei’s inability to attend his father’s funeral stands as a stark example of the regime’s cruelty and its denial of humanity. In democratic societies, family rights are safeguarded by independent judicial institutions; dignity cannot be arbitrarily denied. A father has died, yet his son remains imprisoned—this is not merely a personal tragedy but a manifestation of institutional coldness.
For China to achieve genuine rule of law and civilization, the law must stand above political power, and humanity, kinship, and dignity must become the moral core of governance rather than tools of control.
The funeral of Zou Wei’s father is a silence before prison bars—and an indictment of the CCP’s cruelty. Only when humanity is restored to the center of the system can such tragedies cease to recur. At present, demanding judicial independence and transparency under CCP rule is futile.
Only by ending the dictatorship can true change begin.
Biography of Zou Wei
Born in 1968, a native of Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province. He is a key member of the Zhejiang Committee of the China Democracy Party (commonly referred to as the “Zhejiang Democracy Party”), a human rights activist, and a current political prisoner in China.
Committed to the ideals of democracy and freedom, Zou Wei became an active participant in the democratic movement in the Hangzhou region at an early stage. When pro-democracy activists in Zhejiang took great personal risks to overcome government suppression and established the Zhejiang Committee of the China Democracy Party, he publicly identified himself as a “Zhejiang Democrat.” Because of his persistent involvement, he has been repeatedly summoned and had his home searched by police.
On January 12, 2012, following the Wukan Incident in Lufeng City, Guangdong Province — a landmark protest in which villagers escalated economic grievances into demands for political rights — dozens of Hangzhou police officers raided Zou Wei’s home. They confiscated his personal computer, address book, USB drives, and any items deemed “valuable,” and took him away for interrogation.
On November 20, 2023, Zou was detained again after publicly protesting the suspicious death of Jiangsu dissident Sun Lin (also known as Sun Bin), who was reportedly beaten to death by police in Nanjing. Zou held a sign calling for justice and co-signed an open letter titled “To the Nanjing Municipal Government: Clarify the Truth About Sun Lin’s Death.” He was soon taken into custody by the Gongshu District Public Security Bureau in Hangzhou. Police also searched both his residence and his mother’s home.
On March 17, 2024, during the fourth anniversary of the “death” of COVID-19 whistleblower Dr. Li Wenliang, Zou once again held a sign in commemoration. Around the time of the CCP’s National People’s Congress sessions, he was subjected to “forced travel” (a common police tactic to remove dissidents from sensitive locations). After returning to Huzhou City, he posted online about his forced travel and surveillance, for which local police summoned and reprimanded him.
On July 13, 2024, the seventh anniversary of Liu Xiaobo’s death, Zou, together with independent writer Zan Aizong, Zhuang Daohe, and fellow democrats Mao Qingxiang and others — a total of seven participants — held a sea memorial at the mouth of the Qiantang River in Haining, Zhejiang Province, to honor Liu Xiaobo. Some photos of the ceremony were later shared online. In the early morning of the next day, six of them were detained by Hangzhou police. Five were released after being interrogated and warned, but Zou Wei and Zan Aizong remained under detention due to the upcoming Third Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the CCP in Beijing. Both were subsequently subjected to further “forced travel.”
After returning home, on July 20, 2024, Zou and Zan were formally criminally detained by the Gongshu District Public Security Bureau on the charge of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.” On August 29, 2024, the Gongshu District Procuratorate approved their formal arrest on the same charge.
Zou Wei and Zan Aizong were later indicted. Their trial took place on September 19, 2025, but no verdict has yet been announced.
Zou Wei is currently detained at the Gongshu District Detention Center (also known as Banshan Detention Center), located at No. 342-68 Banshan Road, Gongshu District, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, Postal Code 310011.
Author/Editor: Zhong Ran Editor-in-Chief: Luo Zhifei Proofreader: Feng Reng Translator: Lyu Feng
In September 2025, a shocking accident occurred in Shaoxing, Zhejiang. On the night of September 13, after the last metro train had been withdrawn, four cleaning workers were struck by a train returning to the depot for inspection while crossing the tracks of Line 2. Three were killed and one injured. The incident was not reported until eleven days later, on the 24th, and the official announcement was perfunctory. The internet quickly fell silent. In the eyes of the authorities, three lost lives were not even worth mentioning.
Anyone who follows social news knows this was not an isolated event. Similar tragedies have occurred repeatedly.
On August 7, 2018, in the Youshan Meidi Community of Longhua District, Shenzhen, two workers were cleaning a drainage culvert when a sudden rainstorm hit. Torrential floodwater poured into the conduit, sweeping one worker away. His body was found the next day in the Guanlan River downstream.
On April 10, 2019, Shenzhen was hit by heavy rains again. About 25 workers in Luohu and Futian Districts were cleaning drainage ditches when a sudden flood struck. More than ten were swept away; 10 were confirmed dead and one missing.In both cases, heavy rain warnings had already been issued by meteorological authorities. Yet, on the eve of the downpour, their supervisors still ordered the workers to proceed.
In July 2023, Jiang Meihua, a 66-year-old greening worker in Nanjing, was swept away by surging floodwater while taking shelter from the rain in a culvert. Her body was found three days later downstream. She died on duty, yet no one was held accountable—instead, state media portrayed her as a “heroic sanitation worker.” Under totalitarian logic, to die serving the regime is to be glorified.
That same year in May, in Bijie, Guizhou, six teachers were ordered by their superiors to wade into a river to collect pebbles to decorate the school grounds for an upcoming inspection. When the upstream hydropower station suddenly released water, the river rose rapidly, and two drowned. Later, the school denied issuing such orders but failed to explain why teachers were in the river during work hours.
China’s so-called “angels of the streets”—sanitation workers—may truly become angels by accident.In 2013 in Yunnan, 2013 in Changchun, 2014 in Hohhot, 2014 in Shenzhen, 2014 in Zhengzhou, 2015 in Beijing, and 2017 in Harbin, the same tragedy recurred: street cleaners, working early mornings or late nights, were struck and killed by speeding vehicles.Cities awaken every morning, but these workers may never see the next sunrise.
A chain of deaths reveals the real condition of China’s working class: danger is routine, protection is a lie.Safety supervision is a façade; early warnings stop at office doors; responsibility is subcontracted layer by layer.Workers sign temporary contracts, earn meager wages, and bear all the risks of death.When accidents occur, the media report them for three days, the public pays attention for a week, and then silence returns—compensation is perfunctory, officials are “suspended for investigation,” and the system “learns a lesson.” Then everything continues as before.
What’s worse is the cold-bloodedness of the government. Obsessed with “miracles of development,” military parades, and glossy propaganda, it shows no concern for the flesh and blood of its people.Ordinary lives are mere production costs.Behind the Shaoxing driverless metro tragedy lies a totalitarian system’s mechanized meat grinder; behind the Guizhou teachers’ drowning, the abuse of power and blind subservience to bureaucratic inspections.
The bureaucracy flatters upward and pursues vanity projects, yet is cruelly indifferent to the people—especially those at the bottom. In the eyes of the regime, their lives are worthless; a few dead mean nothing.At the “September 3rd Parade,” the government can marshal tens of thousands with precision, yet cannot ensure the most basic safety of life. This is not a question of capability but of values: protecting ordinary people’s lives is never part of their plan.
These workers, teachers, and cleaners left behind no heroic last words and will never be recorded in official chronicles.Yet their deaths remind us: a society that fails to protect the weak and treats death as routine reveals the truth behind its so-called prosperity.
The true measure of a city’s development is not its skyscrapers or subways,but whether those who sweep the streets, dredge the drains, and trim the greenery can return home safely.
We must not become sacrificial individuals under totalitarian rule.What we need is a country that puts life first and builds its foundation on human dignity.
From Waking Up Behind the Great Firewall to Crying Out Overseas
——My Road of June Fourth Commemoration and Democratic Inheritance
Author: Lu Chao Editor: Wang Mengmeng ManagingEditor: Luo Zhifei Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Liu Fang
This first-person essay traces the author’s journey from “waking up behind the Great Firewall” in mainland China to continually commemorating June Fourth on free American soil. It recalls the shock and anger of discovering the Tiananmen truth via circumvention tools, depicts the inner struggle and turn to action after awakening, and recounts joining the pro-democracy movement overseas to keep the flame alive. With sincere emotion and fine-grained narration, it shows an ordinary Chinese person’s passage from silence to speech, from fear to perseverance.
Night spread beyond the window; the computer screen was my only light. I was in my twenties, an ordinary youth raised within the system. I had never heard the words “June Fourth.” Textbooks taught “reform and opening,” TV showed a “prosperous China,” and “truth” seemed never to belong to us.
But that day, out of curiosity, I opened a strange window—I scaled the firewall.
The world on the other side of the screen clashed with everything I knew.
Shouts and chants, fluttering banners, young faces, the roar of tanks.
I saw crowds in Tiananmen Square singing “The Internationale,” student delegates kneeling with petitions before the Great Hall of the People, and I saw midnight gunfire and blood.
I sat frozen at that old wooden desk, cold sweat beading in my palms.
So the country I was taught to “love” had once treated its purest children like this.
In that moment, some inner order collapsed.
I realized that true “patriotism” is not silent obedience but the courage to speak the truth.
After that night, my life changed completely.
I began quietly reading banned books and secretly saving those videos. Whenever I saw “freedom” or “human rights” discussed on social media, I would comment and debate—even if my accounts were banned, my phone searched, and friends urged me not to “make trouble.”
Yet I knew there was no going back.
It was the pain after awakening—and an irreversible calling.
I. From Silence to Speech
Later, I came to the United States. In my first year in Los Angeles, I worked at a supermarket in Chinatown and slept in a cramped rented room.
At last I could go online freely and raise a placard in a public square without fearing I would vanish the next day.
I remember my first June Fourth vigil, held in front of the Chinese consulate. The sun was blazing as I stood with strangers from the Chinese community—some shouted slogans through megaphones, others held signs that simply read “In Memory of June Fourth.”
A white-haired elder lifted a candle and said to me, “Child, I was in the Square that year.” My throat tightened. That was not a slogan but a living witness.
After that, I joined the China Democracy Party and began writing and organizing. I used words to record the truth and actions to honor the dead. We held rallies in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. Each time someone paused to take a flyer, I knew the memory was being passed on.
II. Candlelight and Oaths
Every June Fourth, I put on the T-shirt printed with “64.”
At night in Liberty Sculpture Park, the wind brushes the candles as I stand shoulder to shoulder with compatriots from Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the mainland. Some sing “Glory to Hong Kong,” others pray. The candlelight quivers in the dark, as if the departed souls were answering.
I often look up at the stars and think: more than thirty years ago, the same stars hung over Beijing, only shrouded by smoke and fire. Today, on free soil, we relight that candle.
Sometimes I think: if those young people were alive, they might now be teachers, journalists, engineers—fathers and mothers. Their ideals—fairness, rule of law, dignity—still call to us. It is a force that spans time.
III. The Road to Freedom
The pro-democracy movement is not a romantic poem; it is the blood and tears of exiles—being interrogated, banished, and misunderstood—yet persisting. I have no regrets. I believe every voice awakens someone; every commemoration extends the memory.
Our generation was born into lies yet reborn in truth. The candle of June Fourth lit a fire in my heart and illuminated the road ahead.
Sometimes, writing late at night, the screen’s glow on the wall takes me back to that cramped room.
Only this time, I am no longer afraid of the dark.
Because I know there are countless versions of me, in different corners of the world, guarding the same conviction. One day, when freedom truly comes to that land—when we can openly mourn in Tiananmen Square and lay flowers for those youths—I will tell myself—
罗伯特议事规则与民主是息息相关的。民主不仅是一种政治制度，是对社会资源、生存尊严的冲突纷争机制，更是一种社会组织的精神与方法。它要求人们在共同体中以理性、平等、程序化的方式处理分歧。民主制度的生命力，往往不在于投票本身，而在于“如何讨论、如何做决定、如何服从多数而不压迫少数”。在这一点上，美国军事工程师亨利·罗伯特（Henry Robert）在十九世纪中叶所编纂的《罗伯特议事规则》（Robert’s Rules of Order），可谓为民主的日常运作提供了一个精密的“程序框架”。
In October 2025, the China Democratic Party held a gathering in Los Angeles titled “Celebrating Mid-Autumn, Discussing Democracy.” Besides socializing and sharing experiences in the democratic movement, the discussion centered on Robert’s Rules of Order.
Robert’s Rules of Order are closely intertwined with democracy. Democracy is not merely a political system or a mechanism for managing conflicts over social resources and human dignity; it is also a spirit and method of social organization. It requires that members of a community handle disagreements through rational, egalitarian, and procedural means. The vitality of democracy lies not in voting itself, but in how discussions are conducted, how decisions are made, and how the majority rules without oppressing the minority. In this sense, the work of American military engineer Henry Martyn Robert—his Robert’s Rules of Order (first published in 1876)—provides a precise procedural framework for the daily operation of democracy.
This system of rules has been widely adopted in parliaments, corporate boards, nonprofit organizations, churches, parties, the military, student groups, and even social games. It stipulates how meetings are convened, who may speak, how motions and amendments are introduced, and how votes and records are conducted. On the surface, it is merely a manual for meeting management; on a deeper level, it embodies the core of democratic spirit: constraining power through institutionalized procedure, ensuring equality of expression, and achieving collective decisions transparently.
This essay proceeds in three parts: first, it examines the intrinsic relationship between Robert’s Rules and democratic governance; second, it explores how the rules, when introduced into non-democratic or authoritarian contexts (especially within Communist systems), can paradoxically foster procedural rights; and third, it uses the example of defeated political elites to show that even under concentrated power, procedural mechanisms may serve as a hidden foundation for social stability and fairness—gradually paving the way for democratic transformation.
I. The Democratic Spirit of Robert’s Rules of Order
1. The Fusion of Equality and Procedure
In the democratic tradition, equality is the value goal, and procedure is the path to achieve it. Under Robert’s Rules, every member—regardless of status—has the right to propose motions, question others, speak, and vote. This formal equality safeguards against monopolization of power. For example, a “motion” requires a “second” before discussion, preventing any individual from monopolizing the agenda. The order of speaking is controlled by the chair, with supporters and opponents alternating in debate. Even minority voices are guaranteed an opportunity to be heard and recorded. This is the living embodiment of the principle: “The minority must yield to the majority, but the majority must respect the minority.”
2. Institutionalizing Conflict
Democracy does not eliminate conflict—it institutionalizes it. Robert’s Rules transform emotional political opposition into manageable procedural competition. Remarks must stay on topic, amendments must be specific, and votes must follow defined methods. The process thus relies not on the charisma of leaders but on the legitimacy of procedure. Even when outcomes seem unfair, a credible process allows future conflicts to be resolved within the system. As political scientist Robert Dahl observed: “The legitimacy of democracy lies not in the outcome but in citizens’ equal opportunity to participate—in procedural justice.”
3. Complementarity with Democratic Institutions
Robert’s Rules do not exist apart from democratic systems; they function as the operating system of democracy. While constitutional democracy defines the structure of power, parliamentary procedure defines its functioning logic. In local governments, school boards, and even military committees across the United States, these rules ensure democracy is not just rhetoric but practice. They allow minority opinions to be respected even in defeat and majority decisions to carry legitimacy in execution. Thus, the rules are not symbols of democracy—they are its mechanism.
II. Procedural Spillover in Authoritarian Contexts
Interestingly, Robert’s Rules can operate even within non-democratic regimes. When introduced into highly centralized systems such as Communist bureaucracies, they often generate procedural tension: while outwardly obeying authority, they subtly reshape power relations.
1. From Centralization to Subtle Decentralization
Communist regimes follow the principle of “democratic centralism”: subordinates obey superiors, individuals obey the organization, the minority obeys the majority. Superficially, this resembles Robert’s “minority yielding to the majority,” but the essence differs: the former enforces authority, the latter builds consensus. Authoritarian rulers, driven by self-interest, cannot embody procedural justice. Yet, in many grassroots organs of Communist states—such as trade unions, workers’ congresses, or village committees—some Robert-like procedures have been unintentionally adopted: rules on who may speak, how to introduce motions, how to vote, how to record minutes. These seemingly harmless procedures have given members limited but genuine space for expression. Power directives thus became slightly more constrained by legitimacy. For example, in China’s 1980s–1990s village elections and workers’ congresses, standardized voting and minute-keeping granted the process partial credibility.
2. Rights as “By-Products”
Even in dictatorships, procedural mechanisms can yield unexpected rights. Once meeting processes are fixed, recorded, and archived, actions become traceable—and traceability means accountability. In the late Soviet Union and early reform-era China, formalized meeting minutes and vote tallies were introduced to improve “organizational efficiency.” Ironically, these created a kind of institutional shield: every order required procedural justification; every sanction required recorded authorization. This procedural firewall mitigated arbitrary power and the damage of unchecked command.
III. The Unintended Protection of the Defeated
Under totalitarianism, “class struggle” often entailed absolute political annihilation: the defeated lost property, status, voice, even life. Yet when procedural logic akin to Robert’s Rules permeates such systems, even “losers” may receive symbolic or substantive protection.
1. Procedure as a Rational Mediator
The most violent moments of political struggle arise when passion eclipses reason. If decisions must pass through meeting procedures—motions, debates, votes, minutes—procedure itself becomes a brake on violence. It forces participants to ask: “Is there a legitimate reason?” or “Should the other side be allowed to speak?” Even if the outcome remains unjust, procedural process tempers emotional extremity. After the chaos of China’s Cultural Revolution, renewed emphasis on “meeting discipline,” “order of speech,” and “voting procedures” reflected a social yearning for procedural civility.
2. Procedural Shelter for Former Elites
Even privileged elites in authoritarian regimes face ruthless internal purges. A rational—indeed utilitarian—view of such struggles shows that when formal procedure survives, it can protect dignity even for the fallen. During China’s rehabilitation period after the Cultural Revolution, many purged officials were restored precisely because their disciplinary records, meeting resolutions, and procedural documents survived. These archives provided evidence for procedural justice and enabled redress. In short, procedure preserved history and allowed recovery.
If a former powerholder has committed crimes, justice must address the crimes themselves—but political defeat alone should not erase procedural protection. Only such distinction between guilt and dissent reflects the moral superiority of democratic systems and attracts broader support. When that support reaches a critical mass, quantitative change turns into qualitative transformation: society moves toward democracy.
Thus, even within unfree environments, the spirit of Robert’s Rules demonstrates its deeper power: institutionalized procedure remains the final refuge of rights.
Conclusion: From Rules to Culture—The Universal Logic of Democracy
The success of Robert’s Rules lies not only in organizing meetings but in transforming democracy into a habitual culture. When people learn to wait for their turn to speak, to decide by vote, to document and archive decisions, they cease being passive subjects and become participants in governance. Once this culture internalizes, even concentrated power must respect procedural form; and formal constraint gradually breeds substantive constraint. As legal scholars note, “Formalization of procedure is often the beginning of liberty.”
The significance of Robert’s Rules goes far beyond meeting management. They embody the modern political wisdom of “constraining power by rules and balancing interests through procedure.” They are both the seed and the extension of democracy. In democratic societies, they guide civic participation; in authoritarian ones, they form cracks through which justice may germinate. When even a totalitarian regime begins adopting procedural decision-making, its political culture begins to shift: power becomes the outcome of rules rather than will; decisions become compromises under law rather than triumphs of struggle. And such transformation—quiet but profound—is the true sprout of democracy.
Author: Xinggui Zhang Editor: Zhiyang Li· ExecutiveEditor: Zhifei Luo Proofreader: Xiaolong Lin Translator: Xiaomei Peng
Abstract: Politics is the art of public life, inseparable from everyone’s destiny. Indifference is not neutrality—ignoring politics means surrendering one’s rights. Only through civic awakening and active participation can we defend justice, protect the vulnerable, and build a fair society.
In China, one often hears this refrain: “Don’t care about politics. Don’t get involved. Just mind your own life.” This idea seems deeply rooted in people’s minds. Many regard politics as distant, complicated, or even dangerous—something irrelevant to ordinary life. But I must state this clearly: such thinking is mistaken. Politics is not an exclusive power game played by elites. It is public life itself—it determines how we live together, how we protect the weak, and how we uphold justice. To ignore or abstain from politics is to relinquish control over our own fate and future.
First, we need to be clear: what is politics? Politics is not a cold system or a web of conspiracies. It is the art of collective living. It is the process through which members of society decide how to plan cities, allocate resources, and make rules. From the safety of our streets, to the fairness of education, to the adequacy of healthcare—every aspect depends on political decisions. Politics is not abstract; it manifests in daily life. Every streetlight that turns on, every law that takes effect, every community that takes shape—all are products of politics. Politics connects individual desires and molds them into an orderly, just society.
In China, people’s apathy toward politics often stems from fear or misunderstanding—believing that politics is “trouble” or “dangerous.” Such attitudes have historical and cultural roots, but they overlook a key fact: even if you ignore politics, politics will not ignore you. When housing prices soar and young people can’t afford homes, that is the result of political decisions. When food safety and environmental pollution threaten public health, that is a failure of political governance. When unequal education keeps rural children from good schools, that too is a political choice. Turning a blind eye to politics means handing over the power to decide your life to others. A neglected political system will not automatically bring fairness or happiness.
One of the sacred duties of politics is to protect the weak. Every society has vulnerable groups—the poor, the elderly, children left behind, the disabled. Their voices are the faintest, yet they are the ones who most need to be heard. Politics should serve as their shield. From welfare policies to legal reforms against gender or racial discrimination, the role of politics is to ensure that everyone has a rightful place in society. If we all remain indifferent, these people will be forgotten. Refusing to engage in politics means giving up the chance to speak for the voiceless and to make society more just.
Justice is the cornerstone of social stability and the foundation of public trust. Without justice, the law becomes a hollow shell and society descends into the rule of the strong. In China, complaints about corruption, unfairness, and abuse of power are common. These problems persist because of a lack of political transparency and citizen participation. When citizens remain silent, politics becomes the tool of a few and strays from justice. But when citizens engage—by monitoring policies, expressing opinions, and participating in community affairs—they push politics toward fairness. Justice does not emerge automatically; it must be upheld through political action.
Politics is imperfect, and its complexity can be intimidating. Many ask, “I’m just an ordinary person—what can I change?” But such doubt underestimates the power of the ordinary. History shows that every step of social progress was driven by the awakening of ordinary people. Like drops that gather into a river, each act of awareness and participation contributes to collective change.
Politics requires our wisdom and passion. Participation does not only mean protests or elections—it can begin with caring about your community, supporting public causes, or simply discussing social issues with friends and family. Every small act of involvement enriches public life. Politics is the art of living together—the process through which we face challenges and pursue fairness and justice. Politics is not “someone else’s business.” It is our business.
Reason and Conviction: Those Who Keep Speaking Out
In Solidarity with the Prisoners of Conscience in Jiangxi — A Call for Freedom of Speech and the Dignity of Human Rights
Author:Yu Zhang Editor: Reng Feng ExecutiveEditor: Lili Hu Proofreader: Xiaolong Lin Translator: Xiaomei Peng
Abstract:Through the cases of three prisoners of conscience in Jiangxi Province, this article exposes the Chinese Communist Party’s repression of freedom of expression and belief. The author calls for an end to political persecution, the release of all those imprisoned for their faith and speech, and the restoration of reason and moral conviction in society.
On a land of silence, there are always those who choose to speak.
Their voices may be faint, yet they make the air tremble; their steps may be solitary, yet they illuminate the road for those who follow.
In certain places, speaking the truth demands courage, upholding one’s conscience is closer to an adventure. As the walls of power grow higher, truth can only shine through the cracks. Some lose their freedom; others are forced into the shadows — yet the traces they leave behind become the clearest footnotes of our time.
The term “prisoner of conscience” was first introduced by Peter Benenson on May 28, 1961, in The Observer under the article “The Forgotten Prisoners.” It is closely associated with Amnesty International and differs from the concept of a political prisoner. A prisoner of conscience is anyone imprisoned or persecuted for their beliefs, political opinions, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation — provided they have neither used nor advocated violence.
Though the term may sound distant, it concerns every one of us. When the line between expression and silence, conviction and submission, grows thin, the soul of a society is being tested. The true measure of civilization lies not in its wealth or miracles, but in how it treats those who still believe in truth.
On April 14, 2022, Jiangxi rights activist Li Yixue was sexually assaulted by an auxiliary police officer. After she filed a report, she was forcibly committed to the Jiangxi Provincial Psychiatric Hospital for 56 days. Upon release, she spoke out publicly about her experience — only to be detained again on December 22 after local authorities in Nanchang ordered her recommitted.
The Jiangxi authorities must immediately release Li Yixue from the psychiatric hospital. China’s shameful history of “psychiatric persecution” must end.
A resident of Nanchang, Jiangxi, Zhang Xiaodong was detained on November 15, 2022. In February 2023, prosecutors charged him with “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.” The so-called “evidence” consisted of his posts in WeChat groups and online circles — a textbook case of being punished for speech.
He was tried on March 19, 2024, sentenced in May to four years in prison, and later transferred to Ganjiang Prison. Zhang Xiaodong is innocent — free Zhang Xiaodong!
A businesswoman from Pingxiang, Jiangxi, Zhu Yufang began her petitioning journey in 2006 after the government unlawfully demolished her four bathroom-supply stores and refused compensation. Over the next decade, her petitions brought no justice; instead, she became a “key stability-control target.” She was kidnapped, detained in black jails, tortured, intercepted, and repeatedly sent back to her hometown. On November 14, 2016, the Anyuan District Court sentenced her to three years in prison for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.” She appealed, but the higher court upheld the verdict. After early release in 2018, she continued to seek redress for her wrongful conviction. In December 2021, after being denied the right to appeal at the Jiangxi Provincial High Court, she held a sign in protest outside the building. On December 11, she was arrested again and later secretly sentenced to four years in prison in August 2022. Her appeal was rejected, and she remains imprisoned in Jiangxi Women’s Prison until December 10, 2025.
After more than a decade in power, Xi Jinping has intensified nationwide repression in the name of centralized control. There is no independent civil society in China; freedoms of speech, association, assembly, and religion are all denied. Human rights defenders and government critics are relentlessly persecuted. Ethnic Tibetans and Uyghurs — distinct in culture and faith — are deemed threats to the regime and subjected to extreme suppression. Hundreds of thousands of Uyghurs remain detained, victims of crimes against humanity committed by the Chinese government in Xinjiang. Hong Kong’s once-protected civil liberties have been crushed. They may be hidden behind high walls, their names erased from the public record. Yet conscience cannot be imprisoned, and truth will never remain silent.
A society may maintain order through authority, but it cannot build trust through fear. True strength lies not in control but in the willingness to listen; true stability is not silence, but the light that still shines within people’s hearts.
Therefore, I stand in solidarity with the prisoners of conscience in Jiangxi, and I defend the right to freedom of speech. I denounce the Chinese Communist Party’s persecution of dissidents. Free the prisoners of conscience in Jiangxi! End political persecution now!
