Government is meant to be subverted: On Tan Zuoren being accused of inciting subversion of the state (3)

I seriously think “the crime of subverting the state” is pointless in the sense of legality and logicality; it is ludicrous enough to unify the concept of state/country and polity and make them a crime. I have discussed in my former article A country can never be subverted that why a country could not be overthrown by its own people, today I am going to talk about how government is meant to be subverted.

Country is a conception thrived not long ago, comprised in general of people, land and sovereignty, where the importance of people and land is self-evident. But where does the sovereignty come from? According to the principles of civilian and modern politics, sovereignty is exerted by the elected government for the people who hold the ballots; put it in another way, government is only the manager of public interests for people, or the temporary holder of the sovereignty. Country is like an iron pan whereas, on which, government can be likened to fluid soldier.

There has not been any everlasting government, or any unchangeable governance, since it is impossible for people to be always content with their government. If discontent with the government, what type of attitude should the people hold? One is tolerance, like what is occurring in China in which most people tolerate the behavior of the government; the other is intolerance, like what is occurring to the other small group of people in China. When it comes to the point where most people become intolerant, what means could be taken? The first means coming up is subversion by force, which is the major means of ancient China for dynasty replacement, and also what, ever appreciated by the current government, peasant uprising did. This means, however, brings about such enormous catastrophes to its people and country that are beyond the imagination and reach of us, thus it has withdrawn from the arena of humans today when modern civilian politics has become more and more pervaded.

The Chinese communist government has been in power for six years, but its anxiety of governing legality has never been relieved, but rather become more and more frightened, how come? It is because that they know their position was gained by guns and bloods instead of by elections, and they understand the threat from guns. They were appreciating guns, because by which they threw down the previous government, therefore arguing for the legality of guns is part of their permanent job. From Mao Zedong’s “regime coming from guns” to late 1980s, their insane exultation over peasant uprising of each dynasty was nothing but for eliminating their anxiety of illegal governance.

Why do they have such anxiety? It is because of the analysis and thinking of the common people as a result of this exploding information era in which the world has unprecedentedly opened and interacted, in which assorted comparisons are happening between different governments and institutions. Regarding Mao’s law of guns, while there are several governments in the world still using it, in general this type of violent revolution, or say, jungle rule has gradually discarded by modern civilian politics, since replacement of regime at the cost of holocaust is unaccepted by human intelligence presently.

The power of Chinese communist government comes from violence; although it has been 60 years, its legality is not fully convinced since violent replacement is not accepted by the mainstream civilian world and politics. For Chinese people, thanks to brainwashing and suppression for many decades, they have little idea of from where a regime of legality comes. They could, yet, touch the good and bad of a regime by themselves; only simply physical perception such like looking, listening, feeling and slightly thinking, rather than profound sensing, could tell the effect of a regime. If it comes to realization of the nature of the regime, of course more information and knowledge are needed.

The Chinese communist government knows, without question, the illegality of violent replacement, that’s why they extremely prettify violent revolution. The violent revolution is still documented in Chinese history textbooks where the civil war between communist and nationalist party and the killing of compatriots are described as revolution war, and where killing of the so-called reactionary nationalists is still being glorified. The reason for being such unashamed of killing compatriots and for uglifying the millions of compatriots killed by ourselves (including innocents), is to brainwash the people, rendering them to believe that advent of such violent regime is an inevitable product of history, of people’s choice, and of, ultimately, legality.

But they have never been calm down; they are frightened, on the one hand, and they are ruling the people using frightening, on the other. Besides, they draw on the means of creating enemies to cause mutual fighting between people, and to make people work for their unashamed party-related ideological fight (war and diplomacy). As a matter of fact, they are the same with us, all living in a world of growing globalization rather than in ancient jungle; and they are deeply aware of the illegality of their violence-resulted regime and their undemocratic and fettered governance. And due to deep awareness of its illegality, they have to take the means of suppressing and brainwashing to make the people submitted.

While there are still a handful of governments in the world that have not adopted democracy, more and more countries are moving towards democracy and freedom, in that democratic system has been proven to be one that is able to guarantee a relatively balanced achievement in justice, effectiveness and people’s freedom. This does not by any means mean democratic system is the best in the world, and in fact with respect to governance system there is no best but better. Government, due to its characteristic of being a deputy manager for public interests and national sovereignty and its nature of election by people, should be submitted to its people, and its power comes only from legal election. If a government does not come through by election, it could not represent its people; failure in representing its people indicates its power sourced from violence or stealing, and stolen regime is axiomatically illegal. It is well-known that history is trending towards the system of democracy and freedom; any person or any organization standing in the way is nothing more than a car before a speeding train.