Pro-democracy activist speaks out

By June Tsai


Chinese pro-democracy activist Wang Dan is scheduled to teach at Taiwan’s National Chengchi University, one of the country’s top universities in the humanities and social sciences, in the fall semester, having received his Ph.D. in history from Harvard University. Wang, a student leader in the 1989 Tiananmen protest, offered his thoughts on the landmark event of 20 years ago and his views on cross-strait relations, as well as speaking on his recent plans and himself in an e-mail interview with Taiwan Today staff writer June Tsai.




Q: Your doctoral dissertation is a “comparative study of state violence between mainland China and Taiwan in the 1950s.” Why do you focus on the 1950s? What do you expect from your teaching at NCCU’s Graduate Institute of Taiwan History?


A: During the 1950s, the ruling parties on both sides of the Taiwan Strait faced similar crises in maintaining political control, and they adopted similar strategies in consolidating their regimes, which was by means of social fear. The ways they wielded state violence were different, yet both were characterized by totalitarianism that intruded deeply into the social sphere and the individual’s psychology. This comparative study thus aims to provide insight into the nature of totalitarian regimes.


In Taiwan, studies of the white-terror rule have made considerable progress, yet they still lack a comparative reference. I hope my own study can provide some new perspectives for this research, and would like to encourage students to take a broader approach to history.


Q: You were a student in love with literature and you write poetry. How did you become a political activist?


A: My political enlightenment was due to the overall social environment on the mainland during the 1980s. That was a decade full of idealism, and the major concern of the society at the time was political liberalization. This Zeitgeist wielded great influence on students. As a student at Beijing University, which has a history of liberal thinking and free discussion, my passion for public affairs was stimulated by campus life. While loving literature, I also turned my attention toward politics.


Q: Twenty years after the Tiananmen Square incident, what do you think about all that happened?


A: The significance of the 1989 Tiananmen protests can be summed up in three points. First of all, it was an enlightenment, an intellectual movement culminating in action. Led by students, but joined by all people from all walks of life, the protests helped spread the idea of democracy. In the 1980s, official documents still condemned democracy as something belonging to Western capitalism; yet in the 1990s, words such as “human rights” were written into China’s constitution.


Second, the protests prepared a generation for the next wave of the pro-democracy movement. Many participants from that year started to take the ideals of democracy and human rights as personal causes. Many civil rights lawyers in China today were protesters in 1989.


Third, the movement paved the way for China’s future democratization in terms of political culture and psychology. China has been a society in which individuals are overly dependent on the state for improvements in their lives. In some sense, the 1989 protests were a continuation of the traditional political culture. People pinned their hopes for reform and liberalization on the rulers’ good will. This dependent mentality prevents the development of a civil society and citizenship awareness in China. The government’s suppression crushed hopes and resulted in apathy toward politics, which has lasted until today.


The other side of the movement is that, from then on, there has evolved a distance between the individual and the state, which I think allows a civil society to form, although at great expense. After 1989, any call for political reform was totally suppressed.


Q: Can the apathy toward political affairs among the young generation be turned around?


A: The apathy, to a great extent, is not of their choice. For 20 years, the state’s control of information has prevented young people’s passion for politics from receiving intellectual resources and support for action. Moreover, the suppressive environment provides no soil for an enthusiasm for public affairs to grow. Thus, instead of considering their political apathy, we should deal with the root causes of this issue from, putting our efforts into changing the external conditions. Once the environment is changed, people’s desires for political reform will grow and prosper again. In Hong Kong, where there is freedom of speech, a historic number of young people participated in the memorial for the Tiananmen massacre. This is clear proof.


Q: Has China made any changes in its recent decades of economic achievement? In this context, what is the significance of Charter 08, the first human rights document drafted by the civil society in China?


A: There have been changes on the social level and big improvements economically; but in politics, nothing has really changed, and the Chinese government remains dictatorial. The Charter 08 campaign of last December is a renewed call for political and social reform. It represents an attempt by the civil society to confront the state. I believe there will be more such attempts in the future. And only when such attempts increase will they accumulate sufficient social strength to interact with the state. This is a process that takes time. For now, the government is still unwilling to make any positive response.


Q: How should the international community engage today’s China in this regard?


A: I believe engagement with China should not be conducted with only economics in mind. The world’s leaders should also be aware of the social injustice lying behind China’s economic development. If not, the international society will be caught off guard once the social crisis explodes.


Q: To what extent do you think China’s democratization, if it does happen, could be modeled on Taiwan’s experience?


A: Judging from the present situation, I don’t think Taiwan’s experience could be duplicated in China. The reasons are, first, the opposition in Taiwan has been accumulating political strength through local elections since the 1950s. There is no such possibility in China. Second, during the late period of Chiang Ching-kuo’s rule and throughout the Lee Teng-hui era, the ruling Kuomintang was willing to respond to the society’s demands for democratization, yet there is no sign of such responsiveness with China’s leadership.


Moreover, Taiwan’s small and medium-sized enterprises were in great part credited for its economic rise, whilst in China, the “middle class” is a fake, and is actually part of “bigwig capitalism.” It is therefore unlikely that China will move toward democratization based on the growth of a middle class with necessary riches and education.


The future of China’s democratization will have to rely on the development of its civil society. Only when a substantial socioeconomic power truly independent of the state develops amid the Chinese public can democratization be possible. The advance of the Internet offers great hopes in this regard, and many, including myself, are waiting with open eyes.


Q: What is your take on the current exchanges between mainland China and Taiwan, which are expanding around an economic pivot? What do they imply for the societies on both sides of the Taiwan Strait?


A: There are many issues you cannot solve solely by means of economics. The expanding cross-strait exchanges will have greater impact on Taiwan’s future than on that of China, since cross-strait affairs are not generally what concern Chinese people the most. However, closer ties have helped cool down some extremist nationalist hotheads. What worries me is that the present mode of exchange could serve to hide political and social issues from view, and hinder mutual understanding between peoples on both sides, for what we see of each other is not the true other.


For example, that democratization and its further consolidation in Taiwan necessarily involved localization is a historic reality. Yet I don’t think China’s government grasps this. Chinese decision makers on Taiwan-related affairs do not have a deep understanding of Taiwan, much less of its history. That is also why I chose to focus on Taiwan’s history in my study. Mutual understanding based on truth, and seeing the true other, is important for the future of the peoples on both sides.


Q: You have published several collections of poetry and essays in Taiwan, expressing your inner experiences since the 1990s. Do you still have that young soul for literature while engaging in political activism and academic study?


A: It is never a problem for me to roam between the world of lyrics and the world of reason.


Q: If you were able to make a choice, what would you hope to be?


A: If I had the choice, I wish I could be a travel journalist.

This article is published in Taiwan Today in Aug. 7, 2009.