风萧萧兮易水寒， 壮士一去兮不复还

上中小学的时候，经常见到“前赴后继”这个词。无非就是共产党前赴后继打败国民党之类。大学毕业，来了美国，也就和这个词拜拜了。六四，是一群不懂事的学生和一个宦气太重的总书记的一次遭遇，谈不上壮烈（自然浪费了一个大好机会）。这之后，就是小冲突。最近，这种小冲突密集了起来。

当局2009年底判刘晓波11年徒刑，自知是冒天下之大不韪，所以在西方度假期间进行。我当时在外地度假，了解这件事，就是看到一个清华同学发来的email，email本身是日语的，文章很短，但措辞激烈（附在本文后面）。

刘晓波的《零八宪章》（附在本文后面）我早就听说，因为它很短，里面只包括例如言论自由、结社自由、宗教自由、司法独立、民主政治等等内容，没有超出美国的《独立宣言》和《宪法》，所以我并没有太多的关注。刘晓波的问题，是他想在中国推行这些中国以外的人都熟视无睹的原则。

当时看这条日语短讯时，我的身心立刻从度假的松弛状况紧了起来，我随即立刻停止阅读，三、四个小时之后，方才再次放松下来。

即便如此，刘晓波2009年底被判刑以后，海外还是一片哗然。大家不明白，时至今日，这个世界上居然还有国家，以言论罪（或者按照判决书上说的：“颠覆国家政权罪”；或者是依照中华人民共和国宪法第一条第一款：“我说你有罪你就有罪”）判人11年徒刑。刘晓波上次被关押的时候，当局故意把他和肺结核病人关在一起，迫使他患上肺结核，结果他的肺给切掉了一大部分。今年他五十四岁了，身体并不好。这次被关押，还不知会造成何种后果。

2010年2月12日，《零八宪章》的另一个署名人冯正虎，经过八次回国被拒入境（包括四次在上海被海关赶回日本）后，终于回到上海。（冯是2009年2月15日开始，被拘押41天后，于4月初被逼往日本探亲。冯于6月7日开始致力于回国。）

旅居新西兰的贾甲，上海作家李剑虹等越来越多海外中国人也频频闯关，以图从中国内部争取公民权利。

刘晓波被判刑之后，让我注意到的一条消息是捷克剧作家、前总统哈韦尔（Václav Havel）亲自到中国驻捷克大使馆递一封给胡锦涛的信，要求释放刘晓波。

1990年Havel访问美国，随访的人（像很多当时来自东欧人一样）和我们说，他们的斗争的原动力，就是天安门的大学生，因为他们从那些大学生的行为中，他们看到了他们自己胜利的希望。Havel那次来美国，在国会作了一个很长的讲话。这个讲话所表达的，就是将理想变为现实（transform those words into deeds）的可行性。我度假回来后，把Havel二十年前让我激动不已的那个讲话（全文转载于后）又翻出来读了一遍。刘晓波的这种置自己的生命于不顾，致力把文字（《零八宪章》）变成现实的精神，和冯正虎这种明知山有虎，偏向虎山行的精神，让当局闻风丧胆。一个堂而皇之、号称自己空前强大的中国，竟然四次把自己的公民从上海机场赶回日本。

风萧萧兮易水寒， 壮士一去兮不复还。



A Joint Session of the U.S. Congress

Washington, D.C., February 21, 1990

Dear Mr. Speaker,

Dear Mr. President,

Dear senators and members of the House,

Ladies and gentlemen:

My advisors have advised me, on this important occasion, to speak in Czech. I don't know why. Perhaps they wanted you to enjoy the sound of my mother tongue.

The last time they arrested me, on October 27 of last year, I didn't know whether it was for two days or two years. Exactly one month later, when rock musician Michael Kocab told me that I would probably be proposed as a presidential candidate, I thought it was one of his usual jokes.

On the 10th of December 1989, when my actor friend Jiri Bartoska, in the name of the Civic Forum, nominated me as a candidate for the office of the president of the republic, I thought it was out of the question that the Parliament we had inherited from the previous regime would elect me.

Twelve days later, when I was unanimously elected president of my country, I had no idea that in two months I would be speaking in front of this famous and powerful assembly, and that I would be heard by millions of people who have never heard of me and that hundreds of politicians and political scientists would study every word I say.

When they arrested me on October 27, I was living in a country ruled by the most conservative Communist government in Europe, and our society slumbered beneath the pall of a totalitarian system. Today, less than four months later, I am speaking to you as the representative of a country which has complete freedom of speech, which is preparing for free elections, and which seeks to establish a prosperous market economy and its own foreign policy.

It is all very extraordinary indeed.

But I have not come here to speak about myself or my feelings, or merely to talk about my own country. I have used this small example of something I know well to illustrate something general and important.

We are living in extraordinary times. The human face of the world is changing so rapidly that none of the familiar political speedometers are adequate.

We playwrights, who have to cram a whole human life or an entire historical era into a two-hour play, can scarcely understand this rapidity ourselves. And if it gives us trouble, think of the trouble it must give to political scientists, who spend their whole lives studying the realm of the probable and have even less experience with the realm of the improbable than playwrights.

Let me try to explain why I think the velocity of the changes in my country, in Central and Eastern Europe, and of course in the Soviet Union itself, has made such a significant impression on the world today, and why it concerns the fate of us all, including Americans. I would like to look at this, first from the political point of view and then from a point of view we might call philosophical.

Twice in this century, the world has been threatened by a catastrophe. Twice this catastrophe was born in Europe, and twice Americans, along with others, were called upon to save Europe, the whole world and yourselves. The first rescue provided significant help to Czechs and Slovaks.

Thanks to the great support of your President Wilson, our first President, Tomas Garrigue Masaryk, was able to found a modern independent state. He founded it, as you know, on the same principles on which the United States of America had been founded, as Masaryk's manuscripts held by the Library of Congress testify.

At the same time, the United States made enormous strides. It became the most powerful nation on earth, and it understood the responsibility that flowed from this. Proof of this are the hundreds of thousands of your young citizens who gave their lives for the liberation of Europe, and the graves of American airmen and soldiers on Czechoslovak soil.

But something else was happening as well: The Soviet Union appeared, grew, and transformed the enormous sacrifices of its people suffering under totalitarian rule into a strength that, after World War II, made it the second most powerful nation in the world. It was a country that rightly gave people nightmares, because no one knew what would happen and when to worsen the mood of its rulers, and what country it would decide to conquer and drag into its sphere of influence, as it is called in political language.

All of this taught us to see the world in bipolar terms, as two enormous forces, one a defender of freedom, the other a source of nightmares. Europe became the point of friction between these two powers, and thus it turned into a single enormous arsenal divided into two parts. In this process, one half of the arsenal became part of that nightmarish power, while the other the free part bordering on the ocean and having no wish to be driven into it, was compelled, together with you, to build a complicated security system, to which we probably owe the fact that we still exist.

So you may have contributed to the salvation of us Europeans, of the world and thus of yourselves for a third time: You have helped us to survive until today without a hot war this time, merely a cold one.

And now the totalitarian system in the Soviet Union and in most of its satellites is breaking down, and our nations are looking for a way to democracy and independence. The first act in this remarkable drama began when Mr. Gorbachev and those around him, faced with the sad reality in their country, initiated the policy of "perestroika." Apparently they too had no idea what they were setting in motion or how rapidly events would unfold. We knew a great deal about the enormous number of growing problems that slumbered beneath the honeyed, unchanging mask of socialism. But I don't think any of us knew how little it would take for these problems to manifest themselves in all their enormity, and for the longings of these nations to emerge in all their strength. The mask fell away so rapidly that, in the flood of work, we have had literally no time even to be astonished.

What does all this mean for the world in the long run? Obviously a number of things. This is, I am firmly convinced, a historically irreversible process, and as a result Europe will begin again to seek its own identity without being compelled to be a divided armoury any longer. Perhaps this will create the hope that sooner or later your young men will no longer have to stand on guard for freedom in Europe or come to our rescue, because Europe will at last be able to stand guard over itself.

But that is still not the most important thing. The main thing is, it seems to me, that these revolutionary changes will enable us to escape from the rather antiquated straitjacket of this bipolar view of the world, and to enter at last into an era of multipolarity. That is, into an era in which all of us, large and small, former slaves and former masters, will be able to create what your great President Lincoln called "the family of man". Can you imagine what a relief this would be to that part of the world which for some reason is called the Third World, even though it is the largest?

I don't think it's appropriate simply to generalize, so let me be specific:

1) As you certainly know, most of the big wars and other European conflagrations over the centuries have traditionally begun and ended on the territory of modern Czechoslovakia, or else they were somehow related to that area. Let the Second World War stand as the most recent example. This is understandable. Whether we like it or not, we are located in the very heart of Europe, and thanks to this, we have no view of the sea, and no real navy. I mention this because political stability in our country has traditionally been important for the whole of Europe. This is still true today. Our government of national understanding, our present Federal Assembly, the other bodies of the state, and I myself, will personally guarantee this stability until we hold free elections, planned for June.

We understand the terribly complex reasons, domestic political reasons above all, why the Soviet Union cannot withdraw its troops from our territory as quickly as they arrived in 1968. We understand that the arsenals built there over the past twenty years cannot be dismantled and removed overnight. Nevertheless, in our bilateral negotiations with the Soviet Union, we would like to have as many Soviet units as possible moved out of our country before the elections, in the interests of political stability. The more successful our negotiations, the more those who are elected will be able to guarantee political stability in our country even after the elections.

2) I often hear the question: How can the United States of America help us today? My reply is as paradoxical as the whole of my life has been: You can help us most of all if you help the Soviet Union on its irreversible, but immensely complicated, road to democracy. It is far more complicated than the road open to its former European satellites. You yourselves probably know best how to support, as rapidly as possible, the non-violent evolution of this enormous, multi-national body politic toward democracy and autonomy for all of its peoples. Therefore, it is not fitting for me to offer you any advice. I can only say that the sooner, the more quickly, and the more peacefully the Soviet Union begins to move along the road toward genuine political pluralism, respect for the rights of nations to their own integrity and to a working that is a market economy, the better it will be, not just for Czechs and Slovaks, but for the whole world. And the sooner you yourselves will be able to reduce the burden of the military budget born by the American people. To put it metaphorically, the millions you give to the East today soon will return to you in the form of billions in savings.

3) It is not true that the Czech writer Vaclav Havel wishes to dissolve the Warsaw Pact tomorrow and then NATO the day after that, as some eager journalists have written. Vaclav Havel merely thinks what he has already said here, that American soldiers shouldn't have to be separated from their mothers for another hundred years just because Europe is incapable of being a guarantor of world peace, which it ought to be, to make at least some amends for having given the world two world wars.

Sooner or later Europe must recover and come into its own, and decide for itself how many of those soldiers it needs, so that its own security, and all the wider implications of security, may radiate peace into the whole world. Vaclav Havel cannot make decisions about things it is not proper for him to decide. He is merely putting in a good word for genuine peace, and for achieving it quickly.

4) Czechoslovakia thinks that the planned summit of countries participating in the Helsinki process should take place soon, and that in addition to what it wants to accomplish, it should aim to hold the so-called Helsinki II conference earlier than 1992, as originally planned. Above all, we feel it could be something far more significant than has so far seemed possible. We think that Helsinki II should become something equivalent to a European peace conference, which has not yet been held; one that would finally put a formal end to the Second World War and all its unhappy consequences. Such a conference would officially bring a future democratic Germany, in the process of unifying itself, into a new pan-European structure which could decide about its own security system. This would naturally require some connection with that part of the globe we might label the "Helsinki" part, stretching westward from Vladivostok and all the way to Alaska. The borders of the European states, which by the way should become gradually less important, should finally be legally guaranteed by a common, regular treaty. It should be more than obvious that the basis for such a treaty would have to be general respect for human rights, genuine political pluralism and genuinely free elections.

5) Naturally, we welcome the initiative of President Bush, which was essentially accepted by Mr. Gorbachev as well, according to which the number of American and Soviet troops in Europe should be radically reduced. It is a magnificent shot in the arm for the Vienna disarmament talks and creates favourable conditions not only for our own efforts to achieve the quickest possible departure of Soviet troops from Czechoslovakia, but, indirectly as well, for our own intention to make considerable cuts in the Czechoslovak army, which is disproportionately large in relation to our population. If Czechoslovakia were forced to defend itself against anyone, which we hope will not happen, then it would be capable of doing so with a considerably smaller army, because this time its defence would be not only after decades but even centuries supported by the common and indivisible will of both of its nations and its leadership. Our freedom, independence and our newborn democracy have been purchased at great cost, and we will not surrender them. For the sake of order, I should add that whatever steps we take are not intended to complicate the Vienna disarmament talks, but on the contrary, to facilitate them.

6) Czechoslovakia is returning to Europe. In the general interest and its own interest as well, it wants to coordinate this return both political and economic with the other returnees, which means, above all, with its neighbours the Poles and the Hungarians. We are doing what we can to coordinate these returns. And at the same time, we are doing what we can so that Europe will be capable of really accepting us, its wayward children, which means that it may open itself to us and may begin to transform its structures which are formally European but de facto Western European in that direction, but in such a way that it will not be to its detriment but rather to its advantage.

7) I have already said this in our Parliament, and I would like to repeat it here, in this Congress, which is architecturally far more attractive: For many years, Czechoslovakia as someone's meaningless satellite has refused to face up honestly to its co-responsibility for the world. It has a lot to make up for. If I dwell on this and so many important things here, it is only because I feel along with my fellow citizens a sense of culpability for our former reprehensible passivity and a rather ordinary sense of indebtedness.

8) Last but not least, we are of course delighted that your country is so readily lending its support to our fresh efforts to renew democracy. Both our peoples were deeply moved by the generous offers made a few days ago in Prague at the Charles University, one of the oldest in Europe, by your secretary of state, Mr. James Baker. We are ready to sit down and talk about them.

Ladies and gentlemen,

I've only been president for two months, and I haven't attended any schools for presidents. My only school was life itself. Therefore, I don't want to burden you any longer with my political thoughts, but instead I will move on to an area that is more familiar to me, to what I would call the philosophical aspect of those changes that still concern everyone, although they are taking place in our corner of the world.

As long as people are people, democracy in the full sense of the word will always be no more than an ideal; one may approach it as one would a horizon, in ways that may be better or worse, but it can never be fully attained. In this sense you are also merely approaching democracy. You have thousands of problems of all kinds, as other countries do. But you have one great advantage: You have been approaching democracy uninterruptedly for more than 200 years, and your journey toward that horizon has never been disrupted by a totalitarian system. Czechs and Slovaks, despite their humanistic traditions that go back to the first millennium, have approached democracy for a mere twenty years, between the two world wars, and now for three and a half months since the 17th of November of last year.

The advantage that you have over us is obvious at once.

The Communist type of totalitarian system has left both our nations, Czechs and Slovaks as it has all the nations of the Soviet Union, and the other countries the Soviet Union subjugated in its time a legacy of countless dead, an infinite spectrum of human suffering, profound economic decline, and above all enormous human humiliation. It has brought us horrors that fortunately you have not known.

At the same time, however unintentionally, of course it has given us something positive: a special capacity to look, from time to time, somewhat further than someone who has not undergone this bitter experience. A person who cannot move and live a normal life because he is pinned under a boulder has more time to think about his hopes than someone who is not trapped in this way.

What I am trying to say is this: We must all learn many things from you, from how to educate our offspring, how to elect our representatives, all the way to how to organize our economic life so that it will lead to prosperity and not poverty. But it doesn't have to be merely assistance from the well-educated, the powerful and the wealthy to someone who has nothing to offer in return.

We too can offer something to you: our experience and the knowledge that has come from it.

This is a subject for books, many of which have already been written and many of which have yet to be written. I shall therefore limit myself to a single idea.

The specific experience I'm talking about has given me one great certainty: Consciousness precedes Being, and not the other way around, as Marxists claim.

For this reason, the salvation of this human world lies nowhere else than in the human heart, in the human power to reflect, in human humbleness and in human responsibility.

Without a global revolution in the sphere of human consciousness, nothing will change for the better in the sphere of our Being as humans, and the catastrophe toward which this world is headed, whether it be ecological, social, demographic or a general breakdown of civilization, will be unavoidable. If we are no longer threatened by world war or by the danger that the absurd mountains of accumulated nuclear weapons might blow up the world, this does not mean that we have definitively won. We are in fact far from definite victory.

We are still a long way from that "family of man;" in fact, we seem to be receding from the ideal rather than drawing closer to it. Interests of all kinds: personal, selfish, state, national, group and, if you like, company interests still considerably outweigh genuinely common and global interests. We are still under the sway of the destructive and thoroughly vain belief that man is the pinnacle of creation, and not just a part of it, and that therefore everything is permitted. There are still many who say they are concerned not for themselves but for the cause, while they are demonstrably out for themselves and not for the cause at all. We are still destroying the planet that was entrusted to us, and its environment. We still close our eyes to the growing social, ethnic and cultural conflicts in the world. From time to time we say that the anonymous megamachinery we have created for ourselves no longer serves us but rather has enslaved us, yet we still fail to do anything about it.

In other words, we still don't know how to put morality ahead of politics, science and economics. We are still incapable of understanding that the only genuine backbone of all our actions if they are to be moral is responsibility. Responsibility to something higher than my family, my country, my firm, my success. Responsibility to the order of Being, where all our actions are indelibly recorded and where, and only where, they will be properly judged.

The interpreter or mediator between us and this higher authority is what is traditionally referred to as human conscience.

If I subordinate my political behaviour to this imperative, I can't go far wrong. If on the contrary I were not guided by this voice, not even ten presidential schools with 2,000 of the best political scientists in the world could help me.

This is why I ultimately decided after resisting for a long time to accept the burden of political responsibility.

I'm not the first nor will I be the last intellectual to do this. On the contrary, my feeling is that there will be more and more of them all the time. If the hope of the world lies in human consciousness, then it is obvious that intellectuals cannot go on forever avoiding their share of responsibility for the world and hiding their distastes for politics under an alleged need to be independent.

It is easy to have independence in your programme and then leave others to carry out that programme. If everyone thought that way, soon no one would be independent.

I think that Americans should understand this way of thinking. Wasn't it the best minds of your country, people you could call intellectuals, who wrote your famous Declaration of Independence, your Bill of Rights and your Constitution and who above all took upon themselves the practical responsibility for putting them into practice? The worker from Branik in Prague, whom your president referred to in his State of the Union message this year, is far from being the only person in Czechoslovakia, let alone in the world, to be inspired by those great documents. They inspire us all. They inspire us despite the fact that they are over 200 years old. They inspire us to be citizens.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the Consent of the Governed," it was a simple and important act of the human spirit.

What gave meaning to that act, however, was the fact that the author backed it up with his life. It was not just his words, it was his deeds as well.

I will end where I began. History has accelerated. I believe that once again, it will be the human spirit that will notice this acceleration, give it a name, and transform those words into deeds.



零八宪章

一、前言

今年是中国立宪百年，《世界人权宣言》公布60周年，“民主墙”诞生30周年，中国政府签署《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》10周年。在经历了长期的人权灾难和艰难曲折的抗争历程之后，觉醒的中国公民日渐清楚地认识到，自由、平等、人权是人类共同的普世价值；民主、共和、宪政是现代政治的基本制度架构。抽离了这些普世价值和基本政制架构的“现代化”，是剥夺人的权利、腐蚀人性、摧毁人的尊严的灾难过程。21世纪的中国将走向何方，是继续这种威权统治下的 “现代化”，还是认同普世价值、融入主流文明、建立民主政体？这是一个不容回避的抉择。

19世纪中期的历史巨变，暴露了中国传统专制制度的腐朽，揭开了中华大地上“数千年未有之大变局”的序幕。洋务运动追求器物层面的进良，甲午战败再次暴露了体制的过时；戊戌变法触及到制度层面的革新，终因顽固派的残酷镇压而归于失败；辛亥革命在表面上埋葬了延续2000多年的皇权制度，建立了亚洲第一个共和国。囿于当时内忧外患的特定历史条件，共和政体只是昙花一现，专制主义旋即卷土重来。器物模仿和制度更新的失败，推动国人深入到对文化病根的反思，遂有以“科学与民主”为旗帜的“五四”新文化运动，因内战频仍和外敌入侵，中国政治民主化历程被迫中断。抗日战争胜利后的中国再次开启了宪政历程，然而国共内战的结果使中国陷入了现代极权主义的深渊。1949年建立的“新中国”，名义上是“人民共和国”，实质上是“党天下”。执政党垄断了所有政治、经济和社会资源，制造了反右、大跃进、文革、六四、打压民间宗教活动与维权运动等一系列人权灾难，致使数千万人失去生命，国民和国家都付出了极为惨重的代价。

二十世纪后期的“改革开放”，使中国摆脱了毛泽东时代的普遍贫困和绝对极权，民间财富和民众生活水平有了大幅度提高，个人的经济自由和社会权利得到部分恢复，公民社会开始生长，民间对人权和政治自由的呼声日益高涨。执政者也在进行走向市场化和私有化的经济改革的同时，开始了从拒绝人权到逐渐承认人权的转变。中国政府于1997年、1998年分别签署了两个重要的国际人权公约，全国人大于2004年通过修宪把“尊重和保障人权”写进宪法，今年又承诺制订和推行《国家人权行动计划》。但是，这些政治进步迄今为止大多停留在纸面上；有法律而无法治，有宪法而无宪政，仍然是有目共睹的政治现实。执政集团继续坚持维系威权统治，排拒政治变革，由此导致官场腐败，法治难立，人权不彰，道德沦丧，社会两极分化，经济畸形发展，自然环境和人文环境遭到双重破坏，公民的自由、财产和追求幸福的权利得不到制度化的保障，各种社会矛盾不断积累，不满情绪持续高涨，特别是官民对立激化和群体事件激增，正在显示着灾难性的失控趋势，现行体制的落伍已经到了非改不可的地步。

二、我们的基本理念

当此决定中国未来命运的历史关头，有必要反思百年来的现代化历程，重申如下基本理念：

自由：自由是普世价值的核心之所在。言论、出版、信仰、集会、结社、迁徙、罢工和游行示威等权利都是自由的具体体现。自由不昌，则无现代文明可言。

人权：人权不是国家的赐予，而是每个人与生俱来就享有的权利。保障人权，既是政府的首要目标和公共权力合法性的基础，也是“以人为本”的内在要求。中国的历次政治灾难都与执政当局对人权的无视密切相关。人是国家的主体，国家服务于人民，政府为人民而存在。

平等：每一个个体的人，不论社会地位、职业、性别、经济状况、种族、肤色、宗教或政治信仰，其人格、尊严、自由都是平等的。必须落实法律面前人人平等的原则，落实公民的社会、经济、文化、政治权利平等的原则。

共和：共和就是“大家共治，和平共生”，就是分权制衡与利益平衡，就是多种利益成分、不同社会集团、多元文化与信仰追求的群体，在平等参与、公平竞争、共同议政的基础上，以和平的方式处理公共事务。

民主：最基本的涵义是主权在民和民选政府。民主具有如下基本特点：（1）政权的合法性来自人民，政治权力来源于人民；（2）政治统治经过人民选择，（3）公民享有真正的选举权，各级政府的主要政务官员必须通过定期的竞选产生。（4）尊重多数人的决定，同时保护少数人的基本人权。一句话，民主使政府成为“民有，民治，民享”的现代公器。

宪政：宪政是通过法律规定和法治来保障宪法确定的公民基本自由和权利的原则，限制并划定政府权力和行为的边界，并提供相应的制度设施。

在中国，帝国皇权的时代早已一去不复返了；在世界范围内，威权体制也日近黄昏；公民应该成为真正的国家主人。祛除依赖“明君”、“清官”的臣民意识，张扬权利为本、参与为责的公民意识，实践自由，躬行民主，尊奉法治，才是中国的根本出路。

三、我们的基本主张

藉此，我们本着负责任与建设性的公民精神对国家政制、公民权利与社会发展诸方面提出如下具体主张：

1、修改宪法：根据前述价值理念修改宪法，删除现行宪法中不符合主权在民原则的条文，使宪法真正成为人权的保证书和公共权力的许可状，成为任何个人、团体和党派不得违反的可以实施的最高法律，为中国民主化奠定法权基础。

2、分权制衡：构建分权制衡的现代政府，保证立法、司法、行政三权分立。确立法定行政和责任政府的原则，防止行政权力过分扩张；政府应对纳税人负责；在中央和地方之间建立分权与制衡制度，中央权力须由宪法明确界定授权，地方实行充分自治。

3、立法民主：各级立法机构由直选产生，立法秉持公平正义原则，实行立法民主。

4、司法独立：司法应超越党派、不受任何干预，实行司法独立，保障司法公正；设立宪法法院，建立违宪审查制度，维护宪法权威。尽早撤销严重危害国家法治的各级党的政法委员会，避免公器私用。

5、公器公用：实现军队国家化，军人应效忠于宪法，效忠于国家，政党组织应从军队中退出，提高军队职业化水平。包括警察在内的所有公务员应保持政治中立。消除公务员录用的党派歧视，应不分党派平等录用。

6、人权保障：切实保障人权，维护人的尊严。设立对最高民意机关负责的人权委员会，防止政府滥用公权侵犯人权，尤其要保障公民的人身自由，任何人不受非法逮捕、拘禁、传讯、审问、处罚，废除劳动教养制度。

7、公职选举：全面推行民主选举制度，落实一人一票的平等选举权。各级行政首长的直接选举应制度化地逐步推行。定期自由竞争选举和公民参选法定公共职务是不可剥夺的基本人权。

8、城乡平等：废除现行的城乡二元户籍制度，落实公民一律平等的宪法权利，保障公民的自由迁徙权。

9、结社自由：保障公民的结社自由权，将现行的社团登记审批制改为备案制。开放党禁，以宪法和法律规范政党行为，取消一党垄断执政特权，确立政党活动自由和公平竞争的原则，实现政党政治正常化和法制化。

10、集会自由：和平集会、游行、示威和表达自由，是宪法规定的公民基本自由，不应受到执政党和政府的非法干预与违宪限制。

11、言论自由：落实言论自由、出版自由和学术自由，保障公民的知情权和监督权。制订《新闻法》和《出版法》，开放报禁，废除现行《刑法》中的“煽动颠覆国家政权罪”条款，杜绝以言治罪。

12、宗教自由：保障宗教自由与信仰自由，实行政教分离，宗教信仰活动不受政府干预。审查并撤销限制或剥夺公民宗教自由的行政法规、行政规章和地方性法规；禁止以行政立法管理宗教活动。废除宗教团体（包括宗教活动场所）必经登记始获合法地位的事先许可制度，代之以无须任何审查的备案制。

13、公民教育：取消服务于一党统治、带有浓厚意识形态色彩的政治教育与政治考试，推广以普世价值和公民权利为本的公民教育，确立公民意识，倡导服务社会的公民美德。

14、财产保护：确立和保护私有财产权利，实行自由、开放的市场经济制度，保障创业自由，消除行政垄断；设立对最高民意机关负责的国有资产管理委员会，合法有序地展开产权改革，明晰产权归属和责任者；开展新土地运动，推进土地私有化，切实保障公民尤其是农民的土地所有权。

15、财税改革：确立民主财政和保障纳税人的权利。建立权责明确的公共财政制度构架和运行机制，建立各级政府合理有效的财政分权体系；对赋税制度进行重大改革，以降低税率、简化税制、公平税负。非经社会公共选择过程，民意机关决议，行政部门不得随意加税、开征新税。通过产权改革，引进多元市场主体和竞争机制，降低金融准入门槛，为发展民间金融创造条件，使金融体系充分发挥活力。

16、社会保障：建立覆盖全体国民的社会保障体制，使国民在教育、医疗、养老和就业等方面得到最基本的保障。

17、环境保护：保护生态环境，提倡可持续发展，为子孙后代和全人类负责；明确落实国家和各级官员必须为此承担的相应责任；发挥民间组织在环境保护中的参与和监督作用。

18、联邦共和：以平等、公正的态度参与维持地区和平与发展，塑造一个负责任的大国形象。维护香港、澳门的自由制度。在自由民主的前提下，通过平等谈判与合作互动的方式寻求海峡两岸和解方案。以大智慧探索各民族共同繁荣的可能途径和制度设计，在民主宪政的架构下建立中华联邦共和国。

19、转型正义：为历次政治运动中遭受政治迫害的人士及其家属，恢复名誉，给予国家赔偿；释放所有政治犯和良心犯，释放所有因信仰而获罪的人员；成立真相调查委员会，查清历史事件的真相，厘清责任，伸张正义；在此基础上寻求社会和解。

四、结语

中国作为世界大国，作为联合国安理会五个常任理事国之一和人权理事会的成员，理应为人类和平事业与人权进步做出自身的贡献。但令人遗憾的是，在当今世界的所有大国里，唯独中国还处在威权主义政治生态中，并由此造成连绵不断的人权灾难和社会危机，束缚了中华民族的自身发展，制约了人类文明的进步——这种局面必须改变！政治民主化变革不能再拖延下去。

为此，我们本着勇于践行的公民精神，公布《零八宪章》。我们希望所有具有同样危机感、责任感和使命感的中国公民，不分朝野，不论身份，求同存异，积极参与到公民运动中来，共同推动中国社会的伟大变革，以期早日建成一个自由、民主、宪政的国家，实现国人百余年来锲而不舍的追求与梦想。


民主活動家に懲役１１年判決　米政府は懸念

12月25日21時41分配信 日本テレビ

中国で共産党一党独裁への反対を訴えて逮捕・起訴された著名な民主活動家に対し、北京の裁判所は２５日、懲役１１年の判決を下した。判決を受け、アメリカ政府は深い懸念を示すとともに中国政府に即時釈放などを求めたが、中国政府は強く反発している。

欧米各国の大使館員が訪れる中で行われたのは、中国の民主活動家のリーダー的存在である劉暁波さんの判決公判。劉さんは８９年の天安門事件に参加した後、繰り返し投獄されながらも、共産党一党独裁への反対や民主化を訴え続けてきた。しかし、建国６０周年を迎えた今年、国家政権転覆扇動罪で逮捕・起訴された。

法廷で、劉さんは「憲法で認められた言論の自由に基づくもので、犯罪には当たらない」と訴えたが、北京の裁判所は「言論の自由を逸脱する行為だ」として懲役１１年の判決を下した。

判決後に劉さんと面会した妻・劉霞さんは「夫は『言論のせいで犯罪者になるのは、自分が最後であってほしい』と。１１年後は、夫は６５歳です。夫が耐えるなら私は待ちます」と話した。