Part One: Reflections on the 1989 Democracy Movement
Chapter One: On the Significance and Role of the 1989 Democracy Movement
To achieve good politics, we cannot expect the perfection of the personal qualities of those in power, but should focus on the sound of the system.
— Excerpt from the article
Introduction
Itmay be too early to summarize the 1989 pro-democracy movement from a historian’s perspective. Because so far, there is a lack of sufficient firsthand information about several major facts about this movement. For example:
Under what circumstances did Zhao Ziyang publicly say that Deng Xiaoping was still the highest decision-maker in the CCP?
In the later stages of the movement, what kind of interrelationship existed between mass movements and intra-Party struggles?
What disagreements and conflicts occurred among the CCP leadership before and after the implementation of martial law?
What conflicts and disputes have occurred among the people at Tiananmen Square? And so on.
By contrast, the specific casualties during the early morning ‘clearance’ of June 4th, as well as the detailed circumstances of subsequent arrests and imprisonments, although still unclear, are not particularly important, as they do not hinder our understanding of the basic context of this movement.
As a pure observer of a historical event, it may be premature to hastily make a summary when the facts are insufficient or uncertain. However, as participants in a real movement, it is necessary for us to promptly review this movement. Here, theoretical discussions themselves are also a form of practical investment. A movement has passed, but what it can leave behind depends on what we can discover from it.
1. An unprecedented democratic movement that occurred under the communist system
The 1989 Democratic Movement was an unprecedented democratic movement (at least in Chinese history) that occurred under the communist system. In my view, this is the highest value of the 1989 pro-democracy movement.
First of all, the 1989 pro-democracy movement was a democratic movement, a genuine democratic movement. In modern Chinese history, there have been many events known as democratic movements, but upon closer examination, most past movements, although they also had a considerable proportion of slogans or demands for freedom and democracy, were actually mainly movements based on national crises to seek survival and prosperity. The Hundred Days’ Reform, with the aim of ‘reform and strengthening the nation,’ was self-evident. In the Xinhai Revolution, nationalist elements outweighed democratic elements, which is likely historians’ conclusion. Although the May Fourth Movement raised the banners of democracy and science, the calls to ‘fight for national power externally and punish traitors internally’ still dominated the movement. In these movements, the demands for freedom and democracy were more often presented as means to achieve the independence and prosperity of the nation and people, and rarely as the fundamental value goal of independence.
but the movement of the people in the eighth and ninth years is different. As a continuation and development of the 1979 Democracy Wall movement, the 1989 Democracy Movement was a purer democratic movement. Its driving force does not come from resisting external oppression and aggression, nor mainly from the pursuit of national prosperity, but fundamentally from an internal strong desire for freedom, human rights, rule of law, and democracy. This was the first notable feature of the 1989 pro-democracy movement.
When I say the 1989 movement is a continuation and development of the 1979 Democracy Wall movement, I have actually made it clear that, as a relatively pure democratic movement, the 1989 pro-democracy movement is not the first time. It should be acknowledged that the 1979 Democracy Wall movement, the 1980 Freedom Campaign Movement, and the 1986-1987 university student demonstrations were all relatively pure democratic movements. The difference between the 1989 pro-democracy movement and the aforementioned movements lies not in content or nature, but in scale. The 1989 Democracy Movement was a democratic movement with deep enthusiasm and unmatched perseverance from millions of people. This is extremely rare and magnificent throughout human history.
It should also be emphasized that the 1989 pro-democracy movement occurred under the communist totalitarian regime of mainland China. This is especially significant. We know that one of the most important phenomena in twentieth-century political life was the emergence of the communist totalitarian system. A large-scale democratic movement occurring in such a society with the tightest control in human history is undoubtedly more difficult and complex than those in other types of societies. And even greater.
2. Comparison between the 1989 Democracy Movement and the May Fourth Movement
Some say the 1989 democracy movement was inferior to the May Fourth Movement, because it neither produced great thinkers like Chen Duxiu, Hu Shi, Li Dazhao, or Lu Xun, nor did it produce any truly substantial works. I thought this kind of criticism was inappropriate.
First, we should realize that the so-called ‘May Fourth Movement’ actually has both narrow and broad definitions. In the narrow sense, the May Fourth Movement refers to the march of thousands of students in Beijing on May 4, 1919. It also includes student demonstrations and strikes and market closures by workers and citizens in several other major cities within the following month. In a broad sense, the May Fourth Movement refers to the so-called ‘New Culture Movement,’ a cultural movement that arose in the years around 1919. Today, when we talk about the 1989 democracy movement, we are referring only to the mass political movement that occurred from April to June 1989, and we do not include any major events involving previous figures in China’s intellectual circles, nor any major events that will emerge in the future. Given this, if we want to compare the 1989 Democracy Movement and the May Fourth Movement, in order to have content symmetry between the two sides, we must also limit the concept of the ‘May Fourth Movement’ to its narrow sense. It is also a mass political movement. The 1989 pro-democracy movement from April to June 1989 was even greater than the May Fourth Movement in May-June 1919, and this should be beyond doubt.
Second, political movements are after all not ideological movements, nor cultural movements. In any political movement, many speeches, articles, manifestos, and statements appear. From the perspective of political movements, when we assess the significance of these written works, we must not only look at their profound content, but especially at how much influence they have had on the movement itself. Many literary works from the 1989 democracy movement may not be particularly remarkable in content, but they have stirred strong resonance among millions today, transformed into concrete actions by thousands, and won the dedication of countless people. This makes them great historical documents. The value of these works belongs to different categories from those of works like Lu Xun’s “Diary of a Madman,” and therefore is not suitable for simple comparison or judgment.
While these criticisms are certainly inappropriate, they also raise issues worth considering. Among the large number of historical documents that emerged during the 1989 pro-democracy movement, there are very few that are insightful and rich in content. Of course, in the narrow sense of the May Fourth Movement, there were no truly outstanding works. Around the peak of the movement, people are busy running and shouting, busy with practical involvement, leaving no time or energy to write about profound and complex things. However, in the Democracy Wall movement and the freedom campaign movement, we truly have a batch of outstanding works left unfinished. However, these great works were basically written before the movement arrived. Therefore, rather than saying that intellectuals failed to produce any brilliant and profound articles during the 1989 democracy movement, it is more accurate to say that we lacked the necessary preparation for the arrival of such a major movement. When the movement demands us to produce works that are both exciting and visionary, what we offer is only a rushed piece of language that lacks depth and force.
3. On the role of intellectuals in the 1989 pro-democracy movement
This brings us to the issue of the role of intellectuals in the 1989 pro-democracy movement (according to Chinese custom, college students are generally classified as intellectuals). However, nowadays, what people call ‘intellectuals’ refers to professionals engaged in cultural, technological, and educational activities outside of university students. There is no doubt that intellectuals played a huge role in the 1989 pro-democracy movement. This is mainly reflected in two aspects: First, the concepts and understandings held by the participants in the 1989 democracy movement are, to a large extent, the products of years of intellectual advocacy and expounding; Second, a considerable number of intellectuals directly joined the 1989 pro-democracy movement. However, from another perspective, the role of intellectuals in the 1989 pro-democracy movement had serious flaws. Because they have not provided the movement with sufficiently mature ideological guidance in strategy and tactics. Therefore, we can say that intellectuals participated in the 1989 pro-democracy movement as intellectuals, but they did not fully utilize their role in this movement. During the 1989 democracy movement, our intellectuals carried forward their conscience, moral courage, democratic beliefs, and sense of crisis. Unfortunately, they did not demonstrate sufficiently rich and mature political intelligence and knowledge.
4. On internal and external reforms
Some say that the 1989 pro-democracy movement may not be considered a true democratic movement, because its basic demands did not go beyond the scope of reform within the Communist Party system. This statement is superficial.
The distinction between reforms within the system and reforms outside the system (or ‘system reform’ and ‘reform of the system’) certainly has some merit, but it is somewhat simplistic. I am not saying that any peaceful and gradual reform must start within the system, and then ‘achieve qualitative change through quantitative change’ before moving on to reform outside the system. I emphasize that there is not a complete separation between the two, but rather that there is a channel connecting them. Therefore, some reform requirements are both within and outside the system.
Take freedom of speech and freedom of association as examples (these are exactly two basic demands put forward by the 1989 pro-democracy movement). You could say they belong to the content of internal institutional reform. Because they are already written into the current constitution, and it is not difficult for us to argue for them in Marxist terms. However, at the same time, they clearly belong to the scope of extra-institutional reform, because acquiring these two rights means breaking the monopoly of official ideology and the oppression of civil liberties by authoritarian power, and signifies the legitimate existence of independent voices and forces in society. The whole secret to reforming under the socialist system lies precisely in the need to grasp such issues that not only have legitimate grounds within the system, are easily accepted by the people, and are difficult for those in power to openly reject, but at the same time, they directly and inevitably open the door to the path to democracy.
5. Was the 1989 pro-democracy movement too moderate?
Some say the 1989 pro-democracy movement was too mild, inferior to the democratic movement led by Sun Yat-sen back then. Some also compare the democratic movements across the Taiwan Strait, asserting that the level of the mainland’s democratic movement is relatively low, and therefore conclude that the significance of the 1989 pro-democracy movement should not be overestimated.
This kind of comparison is unfair. Because it overlooks the harsh fact that the 1989 democracy movement occurred under the communist system. Scholars have long distinguished between totalitarianism and authoritarianism, but unfortunately, those who have never experienced the former type of rule often assume both systems are similar. We know that recently, Poland saw the emergence of its first postwar non-communist government, which carries unusual significance throughout human history. If anyone underestimated the significance of this event, arguing that Poland already had a more complete democratic system fifty years ago, no historian would agree with it. To be fair, the mainland is indeed much farther from a complete democratic society than Taiwan, but we cannot conclude that the level of the mainland’s democratic movement is also much lower, because the two exist under very different social conditions. Southern Vietnam had a group of pro-democracy leaders and activists who were not insignificant. Under the rule of Ngo Dinh Diem and Nguyen Van Thiao, they launched more than one vigorous democratic movement. But in the decade or so since the south was unified by the Communist Party, apart from seeing thousands of Vietnamese people flee, have we ever seen large-scale democratic movements there? Is this because the level of those pro-democracy activists has miraculously declined, or is it because they are facing another kind of autocracy far more severe than the Wu and Ruan regimes (which certainly are not democratic rule) and are unable to exercise? The answer should be obvious. I have absolutely no intention of belittleing Sun Yat-sen’s greatness or the courage and wisdom of Taiwan’s democrats. I am simply saying that the view that mainland democracy activists and democratic movements are lower than Sun Yat-sen’s level of democratic movement in his time and below the current level of Taiwan’s democratic movement is unfounded.
However, on the other hand, mainland pro-democracy activists do need to seriously learn from the experiences of predecessors and others. Taiwan’s democratic movement, which basically adopted a nonviolent approach, is especially worth learning from. I noticed that regarding the 1989 pro-democracy movement, some overseas individuals (including some Taiwanese friends) have put forward some special opinions. Of course, these friends are mostly reserved in expressing their views on the mainland’s democracy movement, and there are some gaps, but many of their viewpoints are still highly enlightening. Generally speaking, scholars and activists overseas interested in democratic politics have a deep understanding that engaging in democratic movements requires mastering the art of compromise, which is undoubtedly very correct.
6. Was the 1989 Democracy Movement really a democratic movement?
Some have raised questions: Was the 1989 pro-democracy movement really a democratic movement involving the entire population? Are the people participating in this movement truly pursuing the common goal of freedom and democracy? These individuals further pointed out that although many participants claimed democracy, a closer look at the specific goals they put forward reveals that many are actually unrelated to democracy. Some are even completely opposite. For example, ‘punishing corrupt officials’ and ‘eliminating corruption’ means opposing a despotic government and more about opposing a bad government. Slogans like ‘oppose price hikes’ and ‘increase education funding’ are actually calls for state intervention, which runs counter to the demands for freedom and autonomy. As for the early days of the movement for the people to mourn Hu Yaobang, that was merely a sign of respect for a Communist Party leader, and had nothing to do with freedom or democracy. And so on.
Of course, these questions have some basis. However, we should point out:
1. In history, any large-scale popular movement is often mixed with all kinds of slogans and demands, but as long as participants generally agree with some common basic goals, these varied slogans and demands will not affect the overall nature of the movement.
2. Such chaotic phenomena are particularly common in democratic movements. I don’t mean that the democratic movement should be diversified, so it should also include various demands and slogans (in fact, I believe that in China’s democracy movement, ‘pluralism’ has already been an abused and misused concept, and I will discuss this issue in detail later). What I mean is, a movement for freedom and democracy often includes two different levels of demand. One is the pursuit of freedom, rights, and political participation in a universal, abstract sense; the other is the expression of certain special and specific viewpoints and claims. Therefore, while participants in the movement put forward common demands on liberal democracy (which belongs to the previous level), they also put forward many different and even conflicting specific claims and demands (which belong to the latter level). This is not only natural but also quite reasonable. In Western democratic movements, many capitalists and workers actively participated, and their specific demands undoubtedly differ greatly, but this does not prevent them from indeed pursuing liberal democracy. Isn’t that perfectly normal?
3. Indeed, if people only know to discuss matters and care only about their specific demands, then it may indeed have nothing to do with freedom and democracy. The common people demand honest officials and good government, but that doesn’t mean they demand freedom and democracy. However, if they can combine and elevate these specific demands to the universal level of freedom of expression of political views and participation in the selection and supervision of governments and officials, then they are precisely pursuing freedom and democracy. During the 1989 pro-democracy movement, the broad masses were able to consciously guide their specific demands under the universal principles of freedom and democracy. This precisely shows that it is a fairly conscious democratic movement. (Here, I also take the opportunity to analyze Ding’s view that ordinary Chinese people only hope for a good life and do not demand freedom and democracy, which is a trend that easily causes confusion.) Demands like ‘opposing price hikes’ and ‘increasing education funding’ are, of course, calls for state (government) intervention, so they do indeed demand certain restrictions on certain aspects of freedom. However, unless we agree with R. N0ziCk’s so-called ‘minimum state’ claim and strictly limit the state’s functions to the role of the ‘night watchman,’ We must agree that, as an institution regulating various social interests, the state can intervene moderately (as long as such intervention is through democratic procedures); whether these requirements themselves are appropriate is another matter.
Finally, the early demands for Hu Yaobang to mourn Hu Yaobang were clearly merely the trigger for the 1989 pro-democracy movement, and thus do not fully reflect the nature of the entire movement.
7. The 1989 pro-democracy movement should not be overly idealized
From the overall direction and goals of the movement, the 1989 pro-democracy movement was undoubtedly a genuine democratic movement. However, this does not mean that in this movement, all actions by students and the public fully embody the spirit and demands of democracy.
In fact, the participants in the 1989 democracy movement, especially young university students, still had many shortcomings in their democratic cultivation and ability to practice democracy. As far as we know, in the later stages of the movement, the square had already become quite chaotic, with some student leaders showing signs of abuse of power (some jokingly call this situation ‘not under military control, but already under academic control’). Some foreign journalists commented that the system established by the students at Tiananmen Square is very similar to the system they are currently opposing. In the ‘June 2nd Hunger Strike Manifesto,’ Liu Xiaobo sharply pointed out:
Student failures mainly manifested in internal organizational chaos, lack of efficiency, and democratic procedures. For example, the goal is democratic but the means and process are undemocratic; theory is democratic, but handling specific problems is undemocratic; lack of cooperative spirit, power cancels each other out, resulting in zero decision-making; financial chaos, material waste, excess emotion but insufficient rationality, excess sense of privilege but insufficient awareness of equality, and so on.
Whether these criticisms are all accurate remains uncertain, and we cannot easily judge. But based on what is currently known, these criticisms are certainly not baseless. We do not intend to blame these inexperienced college students (we ourselves are much better than them), but we should not overlook our own shortcomings. While fully affirming the democratic nature of the 1989 democracy movement, we should not idealize this movement too much.
8. On the issue of independence in the later stages of the 1989 Democratic Movement
Some say that in the later stages of the 1989 democracy movement, it lost its independence and became a tool for internal party struggles.
Regarding the connection between intra-Party struggle and movements, our current understanding is still insufficient. However, there are a few things worth noting. After May 17th, the entire movement indeed shifted toward ‘supporting Zhao, opposing Deng.’ In the subsequent major marches, it is said that people from ‘higher-ups’ were organizing and coordinating with them. Chinese students studying in the United States held the largest rally on May 20, initiated by the officially backed National Association of Students and Scholars. Recently, Hou Dejian published an article mentioning how, in the early hours of June 4th, he persuaded students to evacuate Tiananmen Square. Chai Ling once told him, ‘Zhao Ziyang and Yan Mingfu have sent word to tell us to hold out until dawn.’ The authenticity of this situation certainly requires further verification. However, in the later stages of the 1989 movement, there was deep involvement from party forces, which is probably beyond doubt.
Nevertheless, I think it would still be inappropriate to assert that the later movement has lost its independence. The problem was that the masses at the center of the movement (mainly students) received news, developments, suggestions, and hints from all sides. When making their own decisions, they were inevitably influenced by these messages, movements, suggestions, and hints. However, unlike the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution, The students and mass groups in the 1989 pro-democracy movement subjectively never made any commitment to obey any particular directive; they made their own decisions independently based on their understanding of the overall situation of the democratic movement. Therefore, the entire movement remains independent. It’s like a young person who freely and independently chooses their career; when making their own decisions, they inevitably avoid being influenced by relatives, friends, neighbors, classmates, colleagues, and advertisements. Some of these people trying to influence them have special motives. But we cannot deny this young man’s autonomy and independence because of this. Because that’s fundamentally different from a situation where a person must obey organizational assignments or parents’ wishes. Even if the people have adopted suggestions from those with ulterior motives that were detrimental to themselves and the entire movement, that only shows the immaturity of political judgment among the people, but does not mean a loss of independence.
9. The enormous scale is the most important significance of this movement
The above sections mainly address those who underestimate the 1989 pro-democracy movement. Additionally, some views about the inaccurate praise of the 89 Democratic Movement also need to be clarified. For example, some say the 1989 movement was the first conscious democratic movement by the mainland people in forty years, and believe that Tiananmen Square provided the Chinese people with an ‘autonomous public space’ for open political discussion. The ‘first’ here is inaccurate, because this kind of self-awareness and [autonomous public space’ appeared at least during the 1979 Democracy Wall movement, the 1980 Free Election Movement, and the 1986 university student march. I emphasize that the difference between the 1989 pro-democracy movement and the aforementioned movements lies in its enormous scale. This distinction is extremely significant. It should be understood that for mass political movements, as long as the goal remains fixed, the number of participants is the most important factor determining its significance. A truth does not increase its value simply because its followers increase; however, a political movement will absolutely increase its significance as its participants increase. The development of democratic movements, to a considerable extent, is the growth in the number of participants. Therefore, I emphasize that the 1989 pro-democracy movement was mainly superior in scale rather than content, not in previous democratic movements. This is not to belittle its significance, but rather the most comprehensive and accurate evaluation of its great significance.
Reflections on China’s Democracy Movement (Oxford University Press, 1992).
Hu Ping website