A Century Long Karmic Cycle: Back to Sun Yat-sen and the Xinhai Revolution

A Century Long Karmic Cycle: Back to Sun Yat-sen and the Xinhai Revolution
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 5, 2010

The Republic of China has announced its intention to celebrate its National Day centennial in grand fashion. The People's Republic of China has announced plans to expand its commemoration of the centennial of the Wuchang Uprising and 1911 Revolution. All of a sudden, the clock has been turned back one hundred years.
Turning the clock back one hundred years is mere metaphor. It contains considerable truth. One hundred years ago, the Opium War led to a movement to "save the nation and the people." This led in turn to the 1911 Revolution and the creation of Asia's first democratic republic -- the Republic of China. This dynastic change was different from previous dynastic changes in China's history. The Republic of China was founded on the promise of ensuring "national unity, human rights, and the people's livelihood."

Over the past century, the Republic of China has endured both civil wars and foreign invasions. To make a long story short, on Taiwan it finally achieved its ideal of political democracy and a reasonably equitable distribution of economic wealth. The ROC underwent a Civil War, a struggle to determine "Whither China?" This led to sixty years of divided rule across the Taiwan Strait. Since then, the People's Republic of China endured People's Communes, the Cultural Revolution, and other "trial and error" processes. Today its successful efforts at "reform and liberalization" have attracted worldwide attention. As the first article in this series noted, this closely approximates the ideals of the 1911 Revolution 100 years ago, and parts company with the proletarian revolution 60 years ago and the Cultural Revolution 40 years ago.

The People's Republic of China has undergone a "peaceful rise." It has confronted certain issues, and must deal with them. Sixty years ago, the PRC had a set of ideologies. But it marched down the wrong path. Its future path appears correct. But it must reconcile its path with a discredited ideology. During last year's 60th annual PRC National Day celebration, Hu Jintao reaffirmed Marxism and Mao Zedong Thought. This is nothing less than stuffing feet which have been restored to their natural, liberated state, back into their shoes made for bound feet. Can it really be done? Can it actually work?

By the same token, cross-Strait relations can no longer return to a state of "armed civil war." Instead, we must confront the question of what political and economic system China (Taiwan plus the Mainland) should adopt, and what lifestyle the Chinese people (on both Taiwan on the Mainland) should adopt. This was the question asked on the eve of the 1911 Revolution, one hundred years ago. Sixty years of cross-Strait competition have cost both sides dearly. Does it not appear as if we have returned to the starting point? To the 1911 Revolution, one hundred years ago? Isn't the challenge confronting both sides, how to realize Sun Yat-sen's dream of "national unity, human rights, and the people's livelihood?"

The People's Republic of China authorities may be secretly delighted. In recent years the success of its "reform and liberalization" campaign have earned it universal acclaim. Even Francis Fukuyama, author of "The End of History and the Last Man," has reportedly been shaken by China's accomplishments. Fukuyama believes that political democracy and a free market are the end point of mankind's historical evolution. Reform and liberalization may include variations. But basically they are erected on a foundation of democracy. They are based on people and the liberation of human potential, not to mention human invention. The success of reforms and peaceful emergence must be chalked up to the outstanding leadership of Deng Xiaoping and Hu Jintao. Such achievements are mainly the result of enlightened despotism. They are hardly the achievements of "socialism with Chinese characteristics." If circumstances change, if an unscrupulous individual assumes control, such political and economic successes could be overturned within a few short years. Therefore the People's Republic of China may need to return to the beginning, to the 1911 Revolution. Perhaps there is where it will find the destiny of the nation and the people.

Twenty years ago, Mainland leaders often spoke of "feeling the stones to cross the river." Today it should have a commanding view of the bigger picture. It no longer needs to feel the stones to determine where to go. Today the People's Republic of China is akin to three concentric circles. The inner circle is Mainland China's "peaceful evolution." Those in power guide democratic evolution, the way Chiang Ching-kuo did on Taiwan. The next circle is "peaceful development" in cross-Strait relations. The outer circle is "peaceful rise" on the international stage. The three complement each other. They must not contradict each other. For example, if cross-Straits relations are handled by "non-peaceful means," it will influence the Mainland's "peaceful rise" on the international stage. If internally the Mainland is unable to undergo "peaceful evolution," its "peaceful rise" will be a tower erected on a foundation of quicksand.

The Republic of China centennial is approaching. The People's Republic of China stands at the center of these three concentric circles, contemplating cross-Strait relations. Peaceful development in cross-Strait relations, peaceful evolution in domestic politics, and peaceful rise on the international stage are mutually complementary. One can no longer think in terms of "Who will gobble up whom?" Can one really use military force to exterminate a democratic form of government such as the Republic of China? We no longer need to consider "one country, two systems." Can we not find a definition of "China" that people on both sides of the Strait can recognize, both politically and economically? Following the 1911 Revolution, The KMT and CCP attempted to use military force to compel each other to adopt their own political and economic concepts. That sort of tragic folly must not be replayed. The future must be decided on the basis of concrete political and economic achievements. The two sides must simultaneously compete and cooperate. They must attempt to persuade each other. Only such process orientation can provide both sides with the necessary forward impetus. Only such a rational process can clarify our goals, and harmonize with the ways of heaven and earth.

If we view cross-Strait relations from this vantage point, we can be benevolent and sincere. We can be more constructive, and less destructive. We have urged Beijing not to lure Taipei into a trap, but instead to invite Taipei to a dance. The two sides should forgo trickery, intrigues, and power struggles. They should make an effort to act in good faith, establishing a political and economic system acceptable for people on both sides. This generation of leaders must go beyond Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong. They must even go beyond Chiang Ching-kuo and Deng Xiaoping. Today people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are no longer the poor and ignorant masses of the late Qing and early republic. They are no longer the masses of the martial law era, unable to choose their own actions, or the masses during the Cultural Revolution, unable to assert their own identities. The two sides have no reason not to reaffirm the values of the 1911 Revolution and to work together to realize the unfulfilled political and economic potential of the 1911 Revolution.

Let us view things from this perspective. Within the aforementioned three concentric circles, cross-Strait relations play a key role. The inner circle reveals that Beijing will not strangle a democratic system. The outer concentric circle reveals that Mainland China rise peacefully on a basis of universal human rights and the people's livelihood. This is a reasonable and practicable basis for cross-Strait relations. It is also a return to the century old vision of the 1911 Revolution.

The Republic of China is nearly one hundred years old. If the People's Republic of China considers this celebration one held by "a part of China," it should offer its sincere blessing. It may not be able to make such a blessing explicit. But the 1911 Revolution and the legacy of Sun Yat-sen is our common heritage. It is enough that the Mainaland acknowledges this in its heart.

百年輪迴：兩岸回歸辛亥及孫中山的起始點
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.01.05 03:57 am

中華民國宣布將熱烈慶祝一百周年國慶，中華人民共和國則宣布將擴大紀念辛亥革命武昌起義一百年。一時之間，彷彿將時光拉回一百年前。

拉回一百年前，這不只是一個比喻，更有相當的寫實意味。一百年前，辛亥革命總結了鴉片戰爭以來對「救國／救民」議題的探討，創建了亞洲第一個民主共和國中華民國。這與中國歷史上所有的改朝換代不同，中華民國是建立在「民族／民權／民生」的義理之上。

百年以來，中華民國經歷內憂外患，長話短說，最後在今日的台灣實現了百年前想像的民主政治及相對均富的民生；其間經歷的國共內戰，以「中國往何處去」為鬥爭主題，而致在六十年前形成了兩岸分裂分治的局面。此後，中華人民共和國歷經了人民公社、文化大革命等重大的「試誤過程」（也須長話短說），如今在「改革開放」上有了舉世矚目的成績；而「改革開放」的作為，如本系列首篇所論，可以說比較接近辛亥革命的主張，而已與六十年前的無產階級革命，及四十年前的文化大革命分道揚鑣。

對於「和平崛起」的中華人民共和國來說，已經面對且勢須處理的問題是：六十年前，先有了一套意識形態，卻走錯了路；未來，路好像漸漸走對了，但是卻須回過頭來處理那一套已證實為錯誤的意識形態。直至去年中華人民共和國六十周年國慶，胡錦濤仍楬櫫馬克思主義及毛澤東思想，不啻是欲將已經放腳為天足的中國，再強塞回那只裹腳鞋裡。辦得到嗎？行得通嗎？

據此以論兩岸關係。今後的兩岸關係，已無可能再回到「武裝內戰」的狀態，而是必須面對「中國」應當採行何種政經制度，及「中國人」應有何種生活方式的大議題。這正是百年前辛亥革命的議題，兩岸經歷六十年的競合互動，並各自付出了重大代價後，會不會覺得：如今彷彿又回到了百年前辛亥革命的起始點上，共同面對的課題不外就是孫中山所說的：民族、民權、民生？

中華人民共和國當局或許暗自心喜，因為近年來「改革開放」的成就舉世稱譽。甚至有人說，連福山的「歷史終結說」也因中國的表現而動搖（福山認為，民主政治及自由經濟是人類最佳及最後而不可超越的體制）；不過，「改革開放」雖屬一個變體，但其根本的機轉仍是以民主（民本）及自由來解放人性及民力，談不上是發明或超越。何況，改革開放及和平崛起能有今日成績，主因是鄧小平及胡錦濤等掌舵者的表現優異；這類的政績主要是建立在「開明專制」的聖君賢臣之上，而絕不是什麼「有中國特色的社會主義」的成就。一旦世局國情轉入另一階段，或萬一出現一個不肖的掌舵者，這類政經成就可能在幾年之間即可翻覆。所以，對中華人民共和國而言，重新回歸到辛亥革命的起始之處，或許才能找到國家與人民最終的歸趨。

二十年前，中共當局常說「摸著石頭過河」。然而，到了今日，應當已有居高臨下的全局視野，不必再摸著石頭也知應當何去何從了。中華人民共和國當前的處境有如三個同心圓：內層是中國大陸的「和平演變」（是指主政者主動操作引導的民主演變，如蔣經國模式），中層是兩岸關係的「和平發展」，外層則是面對國際的「和平崛起」。三者必須相輔相成，不能相牴相剋。例如，若以「非和平方法」處理兩岸，即影響對外「和平崛起」；若不能引導內部「和平演變」，「和平崛起」將如在沙上築塔。

中華民國一百周年了，中華人民共和國應當站在這同心圓裡思考兩岸關係；亦即兩岸關係的「和平發展」，應當與內部的「和平演變」與外部的「和平崛起」相互對應。不能再有「誰吃掉誰」的想法，難道能用武力消滅一個民主政體中華民國嗎？也不必想像「一國兩制」，難道不能為「中國」找到一個兩岸人民皆一體認同的政經體制嗎？辛亥革命後，國共兩黨皆欲以武力強使對方接受自己的政經主張；但是，那樣的悲劇愚行不可再演，今後應當以真實具體的政經成就，在兩岸競合互動中，來說服對方，感動對方。這樣的「過程論」，對雙方皆是一種激勵；經由此種「合理過程」而達成的「改良目的」，始有順天應人的正當性。

若能站在這個高度看兩岸關係，就能善良與真誠，就有建設性，而少破壞性。過去我們曾說，不要「引君入甕」，而要「與卿共舞」；就是認為，兩岸勿再陷於爾虞我詐的騙術與鬥爭中，而應共同協力以善良與真誠為人民建立正大的政經體制。這一代的兩岸領導人，其見識胸襟不但應超越蔣介石、毛澤東，也應超越蔣經國與鄧小平；相對而言，今日的兩岸人民，當然不再是清末民初那樣的貧愚交加，也已不像戒嚴時代那般不由自主，亦不像文革時代那般沒有自我。兩岸朝野何妨一同回歸辛亥革命的基準，共同致力於辛亥革命百年後仍未完全體現的政經體制。

倘能作如是觀，則在前述的那三個同心圓中，兩岸關係無疑是一個關鍵的介面角色。向內層的同心圓顯示，中共不會扼殺一個民主體制；對外層的同心圓表示，中國將在民權及民生的普世基準中和平崛起。這應當是合理可行的兩岸方案，也是回歸到辛亥革命的百年憧憬。

中華民國一百年了，倘若中華人民共和國認為這是「一部分中國」的喜慶，應當給予善良與真誠的祝福。這一句祝福即使說不出口，在兩岸以辛亥革命及孫中山為共同傳承的交集下，心照不宣即可。（系列刊完）