页面

▼

2012年7月9日星期一

鲍彤：中国现在乱得很

鲍彤近照



清华有个胡教授，撰文宣称中国实行“集体总统制”。集体集体，到底几个？他有数有目，不多不少，说是九个。原来中国有九个总统！一查宪法，于法无据。无稽之谈，不足挂齿，但主旋律的海外版居然堂而皇之登了出来。若说是胡教授招摇撞骗，人大委员长理应辟谣。若说人大官僚主义，反应迟钝，也不尽然——明明港人治港，但在既非外交又非国防的纯香港事务上，委员长偏偏抓得挺紧，效率挺高，现在事关国体，他却沉默不语，弄得中国人不知道自己有几个总统，也弄得外国的礼宾官不知道对中国的九位总统应该如何鸣炮礼遇。无巧不巧，根据胡教授的说法，主管人大的，和主管主旋律的，恰恰都在九总统之列。你说，这是不是乱了套？



乱七八糟的事情多得很。去年年初，有人提出了一个「社會管理」問題。谁来管理社会？按照毛泽东当年认同过的「民有民治民享」，唯一的答案应该是老百姓。但人大和政协的现任主要领导人都不承认普世价值在中国的存在，可见人民必须「不有不治民享」，他们才痛快。顺便说说，政协的主管也同人大的主管一样，赫然是九总统之一。至于后来的事情，人所共知，中国全社会就最后委托给一个“政法委”，被它管起来了。而“政法委”的头子，当然更是九总统之一。一个人管全社会，好不权倾天下！



“政法委”这个组织，在宪法上找不到。宪法第126条规定，“人民法院依照法律规定独立行使审判权，不受行政机关、社会团体和个人的干涉。”但是据调查，各级人民法院，从最高人民法院开始，必须服服帖帖受“政法委”这个非法定的机关及其书记的领导。你说，中国哪能不乱？



一方面是法定的，中国只有一个主席；另一方面是主旋律规定的，中国拥有将近一打（准确地说，是九个）总统。到底是法定的一个大，还是非法定的九个大，谁说得清楚？在中国共产党领导下出现了这种乱相，你说应该由谁负责？



中国有环保法。如果什邡钼铜冶炼厂不是依法立项的，环保法有什么用？反之，如果这个厂确确实实是“依法”立项的，请问，环保法又起了什么作用？在这两种情况下，党和政府都在干些什么？现在好了，拨乱反正了，在什邡居民特别是在英勇的九零后青少年的据理力争下，在守望相助的邻近地区的正义声援下，当局宣布改正错误。有错能改，这是很好的，值得表扬，值得欢迎。问题在于留下了尾巴，拨乱不彻底，反正也不彻底，因为至今尚有多位抗污义士在押未放，真是岂有此理！若说他们触犯了警车，警车本来就根本不应该为保卫污染而出动！现在应该痛定思痛，不去进一步解决发财牟利派出警车镇压民众的那个腐败动乱之源，反而把拨乱反正的义士继续关押不放，如此倒行逆施，不知道是哪一位主管维稳的集体总统的馊主意。



——原载RFA
位於

1 条评论:

  1. Unknown2019年5月13日 20:17

    他有點像蘇聯領袖哥爸妻夫。會把中國搞垮！搞得四分五裂！！！

    Communism is already gone!!!
    Capitalism is gone in the making!!!

    "Democracy" without " Law and Order " without " Government Competency " is a MESS !!!

    外國人已經在檢討 "Dmocracy " 那裡出了問題？！
    我們呢把 "Democracy" 當作神主牌在拜！！！

    The World Values Survey, a large-scale international research project, asked more than 73,000 people in 57 countries if they believed democracy was a good way to govern a country – and nearly 92% said yes. But that same survey found that in the past 10 years, around the world, there has been a considerable increase in calls for " A Strong Leader “who does not have to bother with parliament and elections” – and that trust in governments and political parties has reached a Historical Low ! It would appear that people like the idea of democracy but loathe the reality.

    Trust in the institutions of democracy is also visibly declining. In the past five years, the European Union’s official research bureau found that less than 30% of Europeans had faith in their national parliaments and governments .

    Countless western societies are currently afflicted by what we might call “democratic fatigue syndrome”. Symptoms may include referendum fever, declining party membership, and low voter turnout. Or government impotence and political paralysis – under relentless media scrutiny, widespread public distrust, and populist upheavals.

    If you look at the recommendations of western donors, it is as if democracy is a kind of export product, off the peg, in handy packaging, ready for dispatch. “Free and fair elections” become an Ikea kit for democracy – to be assembled by the recipient, with or without the help of the instructions enclosed. And if the resulting piece of furniture is lopsided, uncomfortable to sit on or falls apart? Then it’s the fault of the customer.

    That elections can have all kinds of outcomes in states that are fragile, including violence, ethnic tensions, criminality and corruption, seems of secondary importance. That elections do not automatically foster democracy, but may instead prevent or destroy it, is conveniently forgotten.

    回复删除