「佔領中環」的概念問題三

「佔領中環」首個商討日後,局勢日漸明朗,原來政府跟佔領中環同樣是無頭鬥無厘頭。

先說梁振英,他說:『「佔中行動」是為犯法而犯法,沒有可能在不犯法及和平的情況下進行,政府不會姑息任何犯法行為』。

「佔領中環」會否犯法或不和平,我真的不知道,因爲連組織者自己也不知道。我曾經深入的分析過兩次(見佔領中環的概念問題),我還是搞不明白他們到底是想幹什麽。現在的商討日的目標,就是他們找來七百多人一起去討論他們到底是想幹什麽(並且沒有結論,此點容後再表)。所以「佔中行動」是否為犯法而犯法,會否犯法,沒有人知道。梁振英說他知道就是想告訴人他有未卜先知的能力。

另外,犯法與和平是兩個概念。我可以和平地犯法或暴力地維護法紀,兩者可以同時出現。假如我犯的法律是白領罪行、交通規條、詐騙、貪污,我就是「和平地」犯法。如果有人闖入我家,威脅到我或我家人的生命,我出手擊殺犯人,就是「暴力地」維護法紀。唐英年、梁振英僭建,張震遠的商業犯罪嫌疑,就是「和平地」犯法,梁振英本人應該很清楚才是。梁振英現在出來說這一番話,反映了他不知道兩者的分別,也不清楚「諷刺」是什麽意思。

梁振英又說:「香港作為城市,高度自治權已比紐約、華盛頓、或任何西方、美國城市高」。

唉。這番話真的讓人哭笑不得。哭的是因爲梁振英作爲特首原來根本不關心社會的民主訴求。笑得是現在根本沒有人提自治權的問題(除了陳雲那幫人),社會所要求的是民主自由;沒有民主自由,什麽自治權全是笑話。他無緣無故提起紐約、華盛頓這些民主國家的城市,拿它們跟香港比較,就好像蘇東坡無緣無故向佛印提起「和尚對鳥」一樣,現在香港人就要對著這個鳥人。

至於「佔領中環」,他們要抨擊梁振英「對法治的理解,比中學生還差」,又是牛頭搭不著馬嘴。梁振英根本不關心法治,他所關心的是「他治」–他的統治。你跟他說法治又是另一個「和尚對鳥」。

戴耀廷又說:「已進行第一次商討日,要求梁振英證明他們有何暴力行為」……首先,梁振英說的是「佔領中環」行動當天,你又怎麽跟他提商討日呢?難道你的「佔領中環」是以商討日的形式進行?假如黑社會出言恐嚇要襲擊他人,他人去找警察備案,這時候黑社會否辯駁說:「我還沒有出手」?(答案是會,但你們是大學教授,不能跟黑社會同樣水平。)

第二,梁振英是衝著你們「堵塞馬路」、「自首達義」的説話而發言(不要告訴我你沒有說過),我先不說堵路是否違法(按照香港法律,是),如果你不是違法,你自什麽首?你死什麽士?再者,你也信誓旦旦的說:「公民抗命的行動屬違法行為,所以參與者必須在誓言書表明會承擔罪責」,梁振英說你會犯法,你要駁斥他這點,這只有兩個可能性:1)你撒謊;2)你不知道自己在幹什麽。

我相信戴耀廷沒有撒謊,因爲種種跡象顯示他真的不知道自己在幹什麽。今次的商討日得出七道議題也反映出這個問題:

1.如何加強「佔中」運動的宣傳及論述,解釋運動是和平進行,不會破壞經濟和社會發展。

2.如何將「佔中」運動提升至全民運動層面,扣連民生與民主,深入各種族和階層,特別是基層。

3.如何商討方案、談判的底綫,特別是提名委員會的組成。

4.如何為「佔中」運動建立具公信力的決策機制。

5. 「佔中」運動何時進行、何時退出,甚麼時候才叫終結。

6.如何進一步加強「佔中」運動的組織,以及增加資源,例如籌款。

7.如何應對中央及政府的抹黑和打壓。

我作爲一個策略家,政治科學家,正常人,看到費了這麽多人力物力而得出這七道議題我真的汗流浹背。這七道議題大部份都是内部的組織問題,你怎麽可能找700人去商議?好像『如何加強「佔中」運動的宣傳及論述』,這完全是組織者的工作,你應該先定立一套妥善的策略,再去制定行動計劃,然後去宣傳活動,讓人參加。你已經組織了這次活動,你怎麽還去問如何宣傳,這不是本末倒置嗎?如果你到現在還要問這道問題,答案就是你不適合當組織者。

再者,這些問題全都是「如何如何」,你如何在700人中找答案???你作爲組織者應該有自身的一套方案,把方案抛出來看大衆認不認同。組織了這麽久你還再問如何,你是如何當組織者的?你現在是搞政治角力,策略不是民主能決定得了的事,因爲大部份人,好像戴耀廷一樣,都不知道策略為何物。你要「民主」,要公衆支持,是你制定方案,再以這套方案游說大衆。加拿大的公民議會就選舉制度定出議題,但它並不是找了一大堆人過來然後再問他們如何如何,而是先定下一套方案,在問他們對方案有什麽看法。

「如何商討方案、談判的底綫,特別是提名委員會的組成。」提名委員會這個問題還需要談?底綫是民主自由,其他的細節什麽時候說都可以,而那是「選舉細節」,不是「談判的底綫」。如果你作出底綫,並以此為談判前提,這就代表你有讓步的打算,在這個時候你還能讓什麽?現在的這個遊戲叫做政治角力,你「佔領中環」的目的就是要製造既成事實,你還讓什麽步??你提談判、讓步就代表你沒有政治角力的決心,那你還佔領什麽中環?

現在我們不是在民主國家中向公衆徵詢政策意見,因爲我們沒有民主國家。現在我們是要推翻專制以取得民主自由。這叫做革命。革命需要策略去擊倒對手,你不能擊敗對手,你的民主自由說得再天花亂墜還是跟吹牛皮沒有任何分別。定出策略就需要策略家,而策略家是一些看局勢看得特別通透並能根據形勢作出對策的人,一般人並沒有這個能力。你要「民主」,700人每人一張嘴給意見就會把原來可以看得清的局勢弄得混亂,把自己搞得頭昏腦漲。折騰了半天,最後還是不知道自己在幹什麽。記住這點,民主是你有了方案後,再以民主的方式表示決定,這是代議制的基本原則。還有不明白的地方,請點擊上面「關於山中」,找出我的電郵地址,再給我發電郵。

另外,民主並不代表民衆所要求的就一定好,一定合理。民主制度也需要能幹的政治家,看清楚局勢,針對局勢做出決定,並説服大衆他的決定是正確的決定。這叫做「領袖能力」。你想想有沒有可能不經過中央銀行與經濟學家的商議方案,直接找民衆討論貨幣政策?或不找高級將領商議方案,就找民衆決定國防政策?

本篇發表於 社會心理, 科學知識, 策略, 政治與經濟 並標籤為 , , , , , , , 。將永久鏈結加入書籤。

5 Responses to 「佔領中環」的概念問題三

  1. Bill 說道:

    起碼提升至全民運動層面已是思維上的進步,你投這篇去其他論壇啦,否則這些大佬怎看得到。

  2. Stanley 說道:

    The purposes of the deliberation days are explained here: http://oclphk.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/faq-23/. The first deliberation day was meant to be merely agenda setting.

    I agree that normally there should be some organizers who plan everything and then seek support from the public. However, I can see a reason why it is not done like that this time. In recent years, we can see that social movements organized like that were often attacked fiercely. By following democratic procedures, such as having seemingly stupid deliberation days, it is hoped that the movement can gain legitimacy and be accepted by most potential supporters.

    Further, there can be other beneficial side effects, like developing a sense of empowerment among participants, strengthening the bonding between them, media exposure, etc.

    Of course the decisions made through a series of deliberation days may not be as good as those made by intelligent strategists. But I think that this disadvantage can possibly and probably be outweighed by the aforementioned advantages.

    • 山中 說道:

      Thanks for commenting.

      My concerns are not about what Occupy Central saying it intends to achieve but it’s actual impacts.

      First, there are things that are suitable to direct democratic discussion and there are things that are not. Internal organization matters are not one of them, I will go back to my Canadian Citizens’ Assembly example, which HK and Occupy Central people have no idea about (forgive me for not using OCLP–Occupy Central Love and Peace, it makes my cringe). In this assembly, they want the citizens to discussion electoral reform, from first-pass-the-post to proportionate representation in the province of British Columbia. The organizer collected materials, gathered the participants and educated them the differences between the two systems , and at the end, they let them decide. They didn’t, however, gather participants and left them an open question about “how to organize the session", or “what to be discussed", or “how to raise money". The agenda is set from the get go, but the participants can contribute, feed the organizer data and finally decide whether they should go ahead with the reform proposal. Otherwise they would be wasting months surveying different kinds of electoral systems.

      Second, as I have already said, having a public sessions doesn’t necessarily means you can’t have an agenda. Having an agenda makes the discussion more effective and efficient because there is a focused direction. Many people are on the fence to see whether the movement can be successful, and if it is not, they would not waste their time. Therefore, the session is the movement’s chance to display their leadership skills by showing that they have a clear idea of what they are doing and trying to achieve. The public sessions are about finer details, not, I repeat, the movement’s strategy. One good question to the public would be: “should HK follow a presidential system or a parliamentary one?", not “how could the movement get more money". These are questions of completely two different natures.

      Third, the benefits of organization planning and public involve are not mutually exclusive, you need to get the best of both worlds. Even if you have an agenda in mind, when you ask the public their opinion, they would still feel that they have been involved. Then you need to think whether these opinions are correct: not all opinions have equal merits. At the end, the movement still have to pick and decide matters by guiding the process.Would they simply block the roads because their participants voted to do so? If so, then this decision is a really really stupid one. It would be far better to say: “this is what we want to achieve and we have this ideas and here is why, and this is what we are not going to do and here is why. Let us know what you think." People cannot give good advices if they have no clue what the game is.

  3. Bill 說道:

    It may be the intention of the organizers to demonstrate a democratic approach to the movement by gathering collective wisdom in order to show that it represents the desires of the people in Hong Kong. But still, I tend to agree with montwithin that the strategy adopted, is there is one, is not desirable. The think tank should formulate a more concise approach before the second deliberation is to take place. So far, there is no clear indication as to how Central is occupied.

    • 山中 說道:

      Yes. There are many ways they can demonstrate a democratic approach and they need to do it on the right questions. Strategy is just not the right question. The public sessions can decide whether HK should adopt a presidential or a parliamentary system or whether there should still be an executive council. These are concise questions for the public to decide.

發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com 標誌

您的留言將使用 WordPress.com 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Google photo

您的留言將使用 Google 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Twitter picture

您的留言將使用 Twitter 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Facebook照片

您的留言將使用 Facebook 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

連結到 %s