Article,
Realizing the Right of Expression Requires Institutional Guarantees
danwei.org, (mai 20080509)Joel Martinsen, May 9, 2008 5:00 PM.
Abstract
Freedom of expression and government reform
The May issue of Yanhuang Chunqiu contains an essay by Zi Zhongjun
(资中筠) on freedom of expression and institutional reform. Zi is a
member of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and is the former
editor of American Studies Quarterly.
Her references to the relatively open media in the south (read, Southern
Metropolis Daily and its stable of newspapers and magazines) are
particularly relevant following the recent controversy over Southern
Metropolis Weekly editor Chang
"I don't have much interest now in studying certain formulations in
leaders' reports. I have only one attitude: look at how they are
put into practice. Sometimes, some statements are not workable. I
remember a few years ago, a newspaper organized a symposium, around
the time that "scientific concept of development" and "people-centered"
had just appeared. I spoke at the symposium and wrote up an article
based on that speech, arguing that "people-centered" had to include
human rights. And I said that good slogans and good formulations
had to rely on the healthy power of society to be put into practice.
When the healthy power of society is suppressed, even the best slogans
cannot be carried out. Later, I was unable to publish this paper
anywhere. Someone said that leaders' fine words were "promises" made
to the people. I feel that the statements made in their speeches
aren't promises that are made good simply by saying them. For example,
they say they'll give the people the right of expression, but in
practice, the right of expression is controlled as it always has
been. To this day I have not found earnest action taken to allow
and support the the right of expression. Even the most open newspapers
in the south are frequently given yellow cards. Whether or not there
is free speech is a touchstone; there's no point to further discussion
of democracy. We talked about democracy in the past, but it's never
been carried out.
To carry out freedom of speech and the right of expression, private-sector
newspapers and periodicals must be permitted. They say you can criticize
äccording to the law," but this "law" rests in the hands of the
leaders. A few newspapers in the south are market-driven and no longer
live off the state, but the higher-ups can still replace editors
and publishers. And the publishing houses: they don't need to openly
say that you can't publish this or that book. They just give you
fewer book numbers and you can't handle it. There are lots of techniques
for limiting the right of expression, so there's fundamentally no
need to openly announce that freedom of speech is being suppressed,
or that you aren't being permitted to say something. Call up the
editor or publisher, make an anonymous phone call—no one will dare
to disobey. If you really disobey, there goes your job. The editor
himself may not care, but his underlings will lose their jobs too.
To date there has been no posture of relaxing controls on speech;
it's just that the methods have changed.
I feel that the question of freedom of speech does not only rest with
the Publicity Department. The head of the Publicity Department must
obey the Central Committee. If the head of the Publicity Department
is not in line with the Central Committee, then they change people.
We feel pressure from the Publicity Department directly, but in fact
it's a question of overall policy. We must analyze lots of statements,
a great deal of things in the government work report and the 17th
Party Congress report, and decide what's going to be put into practice,
what's meant for the ears of foreigners, or what's meant to assuage
public opinion. I find that these are very hard to differentiate.
In addition, there's one more thing about which I'm not very optimistic;
that is, when outstanding individuals are influenced by interests
and no longer uphold their old ideas. Recently I ran into a few academics
who had good ideas at one time, but once they entered the CPPCC and
the NPC or attained a certain position, they felt they had the opportunity
to gain information, and said that things were quite free and democratic
now. It's impossible for them to abandon those interests. If their
speech is not in line with the mainstream, then take away a few of
their classes, suspend them from teaching for a year. Without classes,
or if those conferences no longer invite them, they won't be able
to bear it. Their income will drop a sizeable amount, as will their
social standing. Of course, there are some people who will disregard
anything to uphold the truth. But those who aren't shaken by poverty
are in the minority.
As for whether we've improved, if we do a vertical comparison then
of course things are much better than before the reform and opening
up. But those expectations are a little low; we ought to do a horizontal
comparison now. It's the 21st Century, and things around us have
made great progress. Chinese people have studied the American general
elections quite carefully. But we are confused about the changing
sessions of 17th Party Congress and the NPC, which ought to be our
"general elections," and as for the leaders who are elected to the
seats they are marked down for, how much of a right to know and right
to be heard do we have toward them? We can only guess at things through
the rumor mill. The countries around us in southeast Asia, including
Vietnam, are already out in front. Korea was originally an autocracy,
but they've crossed that barrier. Russia, regardless of its many
problems, or whether people are saying Putin is pulling back rights,
they can't return to the past; they've already crossed that barrier.
Our democracy hasn't yet crossed that barrier. It's hard to push
forward now. Even if a truly great leader wanted to push forward,
it would still be difficult, because so many people with vested interests
are blocking it, and there are obstacles both horizontal and vertical
at the lower levels. I think the only thing to do is open up public
opinion and let that healthy power express itself. And there might
be further sacrifices, like in the Sun Zhigang affair: when the Southern
Metropolis Daily exposed the Sun Zhigang affair, one person lost
his job and another went to prison. And that was relatively stable.
If we cannot open up supervision by public opinion in a timely fashion,
who knows what will happen next.
Yanhuang Chunqiu via Gao Shijie's blog (Chinese): Realizing the right
of expression requires institutional guarantees
http://blog.voc.com.cn/sp1/gaoshijie/200951465705.shtml
表达权实现需要制度保障 ●资中筠
原载于《炎黄春秋》2008年第5期-----推进民主是第一要务 ----专家学者笔谈“两会”
我现在对研究领导人报告中的某个提法兴趣不是太大。只抱一种态度：看实践的情况。有一些好的话，有的时候不管用。我记得几年前有一个杂志组织了一个座谈会，那个时候刚提出“科学发展观”和“以人为本”，我在会上发了个言，还根据这个发言写了一篇文章，说“以人为本”要讲人权。还说好的口号，好的提法．要依靠社会的健康力量来落实。对健康的力量加以压制，再好的口号也落实不了。后来这篇文章哪也发表不了了。有人说，领导人的这些好的提法是对人民作了“承诺”。我觉得，他们讲话中这么一些提法，不能当作说了就要兑现的承诺。例如，说给民众表达权，实践中照旧在压制表达权，到现在为止我个人还没发现有允许和支持表达权的切实行动。连南方最开放的报纸，也常受黄牌警告。有没有言论自由，是个试金石，你再讲民主没有用。过去我们早就讲民主了，但一直没有落实。（赞成。言论自由应该有法可依，不能让它变成某个领导人的口头承诺。）
要落实言论自由，落实表达权，不允许民间办报、办刊不行。说是可以“依法”批评，这个“法”也掌握在领导者手里。南方的一些报纸已经市场化了，不吃皇粮，但上面依然可以撤换主编和社长。还有出版社，他也不需要公开的说不许你出这本书，那本书。他少给你点儿书号你就受不了。限制表达权的手段非常多，根本不需要公开说压制言论自由，或者不许你说什么。跟主编、社长打个招呼。打个匿名电话，不敢不听。真的不听，就没饭吃了，主编可以自己不在乎，手下的人就没饭吃了。到目前为止，言论没有放松的形势，只是控制手法变了。
我觉得言论自由的问题也不全在中宣部。中宣部长得听党中央的中宣部长和中央不一致，那就换人。我们直接感受到的是中宣部的压力，实际上还是总的方针问题。（这个老大姐真是直言不讳啊！）。要分析现在好多好话，像这次政府工作报告，和十七大报告里面有很多好的话，究竟是准备落实的，还是说给外国人听的，或者是为安抚舆论。我以为这个很难分辨。
另外，还有一个我不是很乐观的．就是有一批精英受到利益的影响，不再坚持原来的理念了。我最近碰到一些学者，原来思想很不错的，进了政协和人大了，或者有了一定的地位．自以为有机会受到咨询，就说现在已经很自由、很民主。至于下面是怎么样的情况他就不太关心了。现在很多教授收入非常高，有别墅。要他放弃这些利益不可能。如果他的言论和主流不一致，只要停他几堂课，一年不让他教课，或者是没有课题，或者是哪些会不请他了，他就受不了。他的收入就降低了一大块，社会地位也降低了。当然还有一批人为了坚持真理不顾这些。但是，能够贫贱不能移的，是少数。
我们有没有进步，一个是要竖着比，当然比改革开放以前好多了。但这个要求低了一点，现在我们还要横向比较。现在是二十一世纪了，周围有很大的进步。中国人对美国大选研究的非常细，但是十七届人大政府换届应该算是我们的“大选”，而我们却稀里糊涂，对号称选出来的领导人，我们对他们的知情权和表达权到底有多少?大家只能从小道消息猜。我们周围东南亚这些国家，包括越南，都已经走在前面了，韩国原来那么专制，这个坎已经越过了。俄罗斯，不论有多少问题，或者有人说普京在往回收权，但是不可能回到过去，这个坎也已经过来了。我们民主这个坎还没过。现在很难往前推，就算有一个非常英明的领导想要推的话。都很困难。因为那么多既得利益者在那里挡着，下面也有阻力，横的竖的都有阻力。我觉得唯一的就是放开舆论，让健康的力量表达出来，而且可能还会有一些牺牲，像孙志刚事件，《南方都市报》为揭露孙志刚事件，一个人撤职了，一个人进了监狱。这样还算是平稳的，如果不能够及时放开舆论监督，下一步
真的不知道会怎么样。
作者介绍：资中筠，女，1930年生人，中国社会科学院研究员，博士生导师。
Image from Soft Power
