亞洲東部最近非常熱鬧。其中最受到大家關注的，也最讓國際媒體震驚的，就是北朝鮮的金家第三代獨裁者一家子，合夥把他們的姑夫張成澤抓起來然後迅速地殺掉。同時被殺掉的還有張成澤的幾名親信，另外的兩名副總理逃到了中國避難。
這個張成澤不是一般的人物。他不僅是金正恩的姑夫，而且是輔佐金正恩上台的顧命大臣。在金正日沒死之前，張成澤就已經是僅次於金正日的最有權勢的人物。他的這種特殊的地位，使得他在金正日突然死亡之後的繼位者之爭中占據了有利地位，保證了金正恩能夠順利上台。
可是還不到兩年。這位身兼顧命大臣和近親屬的姑夫大人就被迅速地抓起來然後殺掉了。據說還死得很慘，有說用機關槍掃射，還有韓國媒體說是脫光了扔給一群惡狗吃掉了。總之表現出仇恨深重，就差像岳飛說的那樣，吃他的肉、喝他的血了。
為什麼有這麼大的仇恨呢?權力之爭。當這種權力之爭牽涉到重大利害，甚至是身家性命的時候，它的慘烈程度往往是一般小民百姓難以想像的。即使不熟讀歷史，看看古裝電視劇也會十分清楚這種鬥爭的慘烈程度。不但古代，就是現代中國也一樣：看看劉少奇、林彪、彭德懷怎麼死的，也不比北韓差多少。
但凡是專制的體制，權力就會大到了極限而且還沒有約束。這包括牽涉的利害也大到了極限，野心也大到了極限;偽裝也大到了極限，互相不信任也到達了極限。這種情況下，不僅是害人之心可以導致殘忍，防人之心也同樣可以導致生死之爭。沒有正常的約束，極端的權力本身就造成冷酷無情。幾千年的人類文明史證明了這個簡單的真理。
遠古時期，人們為了解決權力轉移所帶來的自相殘殺，發明了血統繼承制。這在當時非常先進，極大程度地解決了權力來源的合法性。因此極大程度地平息了內部權威之爭，穩定了內部加強了團結。因而在生存競爭中處於有利的地位，並且逐漸淘汰了那些政治體制落後的政體。
這在西方歷史中語焉不詳，但在中國先秦時代幾千年的歷史中卻非常明顯。當時政治制度先進的華夏國家，在技術水平並不是最先進的情況下，用了不到三千年的時間，就從只占人口極小部分的夏代，發展到秦朝時占人口的大多數。這之中毫不留情地淘汰了百分之九十以上的國家。
在這段政治體制進化的時期中，華夏國家和非華夏國家之間的最大區別，就是權力繼承制度的進化。內部的穩定和團結是它最大的優勢。雖然仍不能杜絕殘酷的權力鬥爭，但把這種權力鬥爭縮小到了很小的範圍內，把權力鬥爭給社會帶來的動盪減小到很小的範圍內。相對於其它合法性來源不穩定的國家，這就是極大的長期優勢。
歷史發展到現代，出現了一種不同於繼承制的新的權力來源，這就是民主選舉制。古代的君主和學者們尚且懂得;得民心者得天下，失民心者失天下。但是這個過程往往很長，而且伴隨著整個社會的動盪不安。民主制解決了這個問題，定期的直接選舉使得得民心者接掌權力，從而避免了權力轉移帶來的殘酷無情和動盪不安。
遺憾的是，咱們中國人一百年前開始的政治現代化努力沒有成功，最終演化成了從西方學來的舊制度的變形。這就是共產黨的一黨專政制度。在權力繼承上它既不是相對穩定的血統繼承，也不是全社會範圍內的選舉制;而是介於小集團內選舉和血統繼承之間的、更不穩定的形態。
鄧小平上台後想搞一個能維護一黨專政，而又不是內鬥劇烈的制度。結果很不成功，八十年代的內鬥最終發展到了動用坦克機槍屠殺人民。中共政權的合法性降到了幾乎崩潰的水平。結果是只好倒退，回到了還不如血統繼承制度的、沒有制度的隔代指定。
這是因為中國人的認知水平還沒有倒退到北韓的程度，直接的血統繼承已經沒有了合法性。但是現在這種半吊子的繼承制有多少合法性呢?這就是中共最大的危機。
古語說得好：「人無信不立」。國家就更是無信不立。這個無信，就是權力來源有沒有合法性。有一句流傳很廣的話，叫做「政令不出中南海」。它很生動地描述了權力缺乏合法性的狀況，也說明了中國現在幾乎所有無法解決的問題的根源。
不但老百姓不相信共產黨，就是共產黨的各級官員也不相信共產黨。所以各自為政，政出多門，國家已經無法維持整體的利益。這樣的國家和社會距離大亂已經不遠了。
現在還有不少人堅定地相信習近平能改革政治體制，在保證一黨專政的前提下解決人民的信任問題，也就是政治權力合法性的問題。甚至有人叫囂什麼「打天下、坐天下」這種土匪的理論。但是這都沒什麼用。
一百年前，當大多數中國人還認為繼承制最合法的時候，民主革命不成功是必然的。在現在大多數人都認為繼承制不合法的時候，無論是繼承制還是變相的隔代指定，不成功也是必然的。就像股票市場一樣，大多數人的看法就是道理，而且是硬道理。任何狡辯都沒有意義，只能按照大多數人的看法改革或者革命。
The Way Out for China(Part XCVII): From Jang Song-thaek's Execution in North Korea to the Chinese Political System Now
-- Wei Jingsheng
There has been a lot going on in Eastern Asia recently. One item that received much attention and shocked the international media was that North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, the third generation of the Kim Dynasty, arrested his uncle Jang Song-thaek and then executed him immediately, along with several Jang cronies. Two vice-premiers of North Korea fled to China for refuge.
This Uncle Jang was not an ordinary person. He was not only Kim's uncle, but also Kim's mentor and even a regent who helped Kim Jong-un to take over power. Before the death of Kim Jong-il, Kim Jong-un's father, Jang already ranked second only after the most powerful figure, Kim Jong-il. His special position gave him a favorable position to ensure Kim Jong-un's smooth accession to power during the struggle for the throne right after the sudden death of Kim Jong-il.
Yet in less than two years, this regent and close relative uncle was quickly arrested and then executed. There are rumors reported about his miserable death. Some said he was killed by machine guns, while the South Korean media said that he was stripped and then thrown to vicious dogs that ate him. In any event, his execution revealed deep hatred, close to"eat his flesh, drink his blood" as described by(the ancient Chinese warrior) Yue Fei.
Why is there so much hatred? It is due to power struggle. When this power struggle involves significant interests, even one's life, the extensiveness of the tragedy is unimaginable to the common people. Even one who is not familiar with history would know from the drama of the past the extent of this kind of tragic struggle. Not only in ancient China, even in modern China it has been the same: look at how the Communist leaders Liu Shaoqi, Lin Biao, and Peng Dehuai died, under circumstances not much better than in North Korea.
For all authoritarian regimes, power will be as big as possible, without much limit. Such power without limit includes large stakes, big ambitions, deep camouflage, and mutual distrust, also without limit. Under these circumstances, not only can the intention of harm result in extreme cruelty, but also the defense can result in a struggle of life and death. Without the normal constraints, the extreme power itself causes extreme callousness. The history of human civilization for the last thousands of years proves this simple truth.
In ancient times, people invented the lineage inheritance system in order to avoid internal bloodshed due to power struggles. That concept was very advanced at the time; to a great extent it solved the legitimacy of power. Thus to a great extent it quelled the power infighting, stabilized internal security, and enhanced unity. The inherited monarchies were in a favorable position during the competition for survival, and gradually phased out the political systems that lagged behind.
This lineage was not so elaborate in Western history, but obvious in the Chinese history of the thousands of years of the pre-Qin Dynasty eras. At that time, the Chinese technical level was not the most advanced, but its political system was. So within less than3,000 years, it was able to develop from the Xia Dynasty ruling over a very small portion of the population, to the Qin Dynasty ruling over the majority. During the course of this history, the dynasties mercilessly eliminated over90 percent of neighboring countries.
During this period, the biggest difference between China as a nation and other countries was the evolution of the power succession system. Its greatest advantage was the internal stability and unity. Although it was still unable to put an end to brutal power struggles, it was able to reduce the power struggles to a very small number of people, and thus reduce the social unrest due to these power struggles to a very small range. In comparison to countries that had unstable sources of legitimacy, this was a great long-term advantage.
Now we have come to the modern era, and a new system has emerged that is different from the inherited source of power; the democratic electoral system. Even the ancient monarchs and scholars knew that"if one wins the hearts of the people one shall get the world, while if one loses the hearts of the people one shall lose the world." However, in the past this process of winning hearts was often long and accompanied by a turbulent society as a whole. Democracy solves this problem, with regular direct elections for those officials who"won hearts of the people" to take over power, thus avoiding the ruthlessness and volatility of the transfer of power while maintaining popular support.
Unfortunately, our Chinese people's political modernization effort that began one hundred years ago was not successful, and eventually evolved into a deformation of the old regime learned from the West: the one-party dictatorship of the Communist Party. On the issue of transferring power, one-party dictatorship preserves neither a relatively stable lineage inheritance, nor the electoral system among the whole of society. Instead, it leads to an even more unstable state somewhere between elections among small cliques and lineage inheritance.
After Deng Xiaoping came to power, he wanted a system that would be able to maintain a one-party dictatorship, yet without violent infighting. The result was very unsuccessful, the infighting of the Communist regime in the1980's eventually resulted in the use of tanks and machine guns to kill the Chinese people. The legitimacy of the Chinese Communist regime nearly collapsed. As a result, the Communist regime had to go backwards, to the inter-generational appointments without a specific system, which is even less convincing than the inheritance system of lineage.
However, the awareness level of the Chinese people has not receded to the level of North Korea, thus a direct lineage inheritance of power already had no legitimacy. But now how much legitimacy does this system of half-inheritance have? This is the biggest crisis of the Chinese Communist regime now.
As the old Chinese saying goes:"A person cannot stand without a good credit." A regime even more so"cannot stand without a good credit." This lack of credit refers to the legitimacy of the power source. There is a very widespread sentence heard now in China:"The decrees can not get out of ZhongNanHai(the headquarter location of the Communist regime)". This sentence vividly describes the lack of legitimacy of power for the Communist regime, and also illustrates the root of almost all the unsolvable problems in China now.
Not only is it that the common Chinese do not believe in the Communist Party, even the officials at various levels of the Communist Party do not believe in the Communist Party. Thus they hold their own policies and carrying them out fragmentally, while sending their children abroad for safety. This country is already unable to maintain the overall interests. Such a state and society is not far from big chaos.
Now there are still many people who firmly believe that, under the premise of ensuring one-party dictatorship, Xi Jinping can reform the political system and solve the trust issue from the people, thus restoring the legitimacy of political power. Some are even clamoring the bandits' theory of"who conquers the world, shall have the world." But it is of no use.
One hundred years ago, when most Chinese people still thought the inheritance system was the most legitimate system, it was indeed inevitable for the democratic revolution to be unsuccessful. However, as of now most Chinese think inheritance is not a legitimate system, regardless whether it is a true inheritance system or a disguised inheritance system in the form of inter-generational appointments. Both inevitably will be unsuccessful. This situation is sort of like the stock market, where most people's perception becomes truth and the last word. Any quibble becomes nonsense; a reform or revolution will follow according to the view of the majority.
