在悼念胡耀邦同志逝世的活动中，广大共产党员、工人、农民、知识分子、干部、解放军和青年学生，以各种形式表达自己的哀思，并表示要化悲痛为力量，为实现四化、振兴中华贡献力量。
在悼念活动期间，也出现了一些不正常情况。极少数人借机制造谣言，指名攻击党和国家领导人；蛊惑群众冲击党中央、国务院所在地中南海新华门；甚至还有人喊出了打倒共产党等反动口号；在西安、长沙发生了一些不法分子打、砸、抢、烧的严重事件。
考虑到广大群众的悲痛心情，对于青年学生感情激动时某些不妥当的言行，党和政府采取了容忍和克制态度。在二十二日胡耀邦同志追悼大会召开前，对于先期到达天安门广场的一些学生并没有按照惯例清场，而是要求他们遵守纪律，共同追悼胡耀邦同志。由于大家的共同努力，保证了追悼大会在庄严肃穆的气氛中顺利进行。
但是，在追悼大会后，极少数别有用心的人继续利用青年学生悼念胡耀邦同志的心情，制造种种谣言，蛊惑人心，利用大小字报污蔑、谩骂、攻击党和国家领导人；公然违反宪法，鼓动反对共产党的领导和社会主义制度；在一部分高等学校中成立非法组织，向学生会“夺权”，有的甚至抢占学校广播室；在有的高等学校中鼓动学生罢课、教师罢教，甚至强行阻止同学上课；盗用工人组织的名义，散发反动传单；并且四处串联，企图制造更大的事端。
这些事实表明，极少数人不是在进行悼念胡耀邦同志的活动，不是为了在中国推进社会主义民主政治的进程，也不是有些不满发发牢骚。他们打着民主的旗号破坏民主法制，其目的是要搞散人心，捣乱全国，破坏安定团结的政治局面。这是一场有计划的阴谋，是一次动乱，其实质是要从根本上否定中国共产党的领导，否定社会主义制度。这是摆在全党和全国各族人民面前的一场严重的政治斗争。
如果对这场动乱姑息纵容，听之任之，将会出现严重的混乱局面，全国人民，包括广大青年学生所希望的改革开放，治理整顿，建设发展，控制物价，改善生活，反对腐败现象，建设民主与法制，都将化为泡影；甚至十年改革取得的巨大成果都可能丧失殆尽，全民族振兴中华的宏伟愿望也难以实现。一个很有希望很有前途的中国，将变为一个动乱不安的没有前途的中国。
全党和全国人民都要充分认识这场斗争的严重性，团结起来，旗帜鲜明地反对动乱，坚决维护得来不易的安定团结的政治局面，维护宪法，维护社会主义民主和法制。决不允许成立任何非法组织；对以任何借口侵犯合法学生组织权益的行为要坚决制止；对蓄意造谣进行诬陷者，要依法追究刑事责任；禁止非法游行示威，禁止到工厂、农村、学校进行串联；对于搞打、砸、抢、烧的人要依法制裁；要保护学生上课学习的正当权利。广大同学真诚地希望消除腐败，推进民主，这也是党和政府的要求，这些要求只能在党的领导下，加强治理整顿，积极推进改革，健全社会主义民主和法制来实现。
全党同志、全国人民必须清醒地认识别，不坚决地制止这场动乱，将国无宁日。这场斗争事关改革开放和四化建设的成败，事关国家民族的前途。中国共产党各级组织、广大共产党员、共青团员、各民主党派、爱国民主人士和全国人民要明辨是非，积极行动起来，为坚决、迅速地制止这场动乱而斗争！
——《人民日报》社论
有人认为，四二六社论中的部分观点是引发六四学潮的直接原因，若没有四二六社论，学生不会走向极端并给予当局镇压的口实。
below is cited from the wikipedia of the 'people's daily editorial of april 26' page:
Contents
Titled “It is necessary to take a clear-cut stand against disturbances” (simplified Chinese: 必须旗帜鲜明地反对动乱; traditional Chinese: 必須旗幟鮮明地反對動亂;pinyin: Bìxǖ Qízhì Xiānmíngde Fănduè Dòngluàn), the editorial begins by addressing the entire population of China, acknowledging their diverse expressions of grief.[4] Specifically referencing the need to “turn grief into strength”, the editorial suggests that the poignancy of Hu’s death reaffirms the significance of upholding the four modernizations.[4] Carried out by “an extremely small number of people,” subversive responses, which the editorial describes as mostly verbal denunciations of the CPC, are an example of “abnormal phenomena” to be dealt with swiftly.[4]
Focusing in on the students, the editorial references their assembly at Tiananmen Square on April 22 in an effort to participate in Hu’s official memorial. The Party, acknowledging that the state of mourning creates “emotionally agitated” students, demonstrated “tolerance and restraint”[4] towards this gathering, and the memorial was allowed to proceed without difficulty. The fundamental problem, according to the editorial, is that “an extremely small number of people with ulterior purposes” have taken advantage of students, teachers, and even workers, to promote a “reactionary” message against Party leadership.[4] The editorial describes this small group of people as not grieving, but executing a “planned conspiracy” to “plunge the whole country into chaos and sabotage,” in order to “negate the leadership of the CPC and the socialist system”.[4] This accusation declares actions like the spreading of rumours, the use of posters, and the forming of unions, as completely detrimental to the future of the nation.[4] To put this in perspective, the editorial suggests that “reactionary” behaviour could potentially reverse the economic progress made by Deng Xiaoping’s program of reform and opening up. According to the editorial, this jeopardizes existing initiatives to control prices, eliminate corruption, and take on political reform.[4]
The editorial therefore calls on the population to help stabilize the political status quo by refusing to take part in any disturbances. Illegal unions, rumour mongering, and “unlawful parades and demonstrations” are presented as not only violations against the state, but also against a student’s right to study.[4] The editorial ends by alluding to a general agreement among students and the Party to eliminate corruption and promote democracy, emphasizing the need to end disturbances in order for China to move forward.
Intellectual critique
In mid-May 1989, author Wang Ruowang published a rebuttal, arguing vehemently against the editorial. Wang calls the accusation toward “people with ulterior motives” conveniently ambiguous since it allows the Party to target virtually anyone for persecution.[5] He also claims that the editorial lacks evidence when referring to incidents like the shouting of “reactionary” slogans. Still, Wang argues, it deliberately mentions these incidents to provide a pretext for the Party to suppress demonstrators.[6] While he sees the editorial as an attempt to reaffirm the authority of the Party, he argues that it has actually been counterproductive on this point. Wang suggests that by threatening the students, the editorial itself provokes tension, effectively heightening the disturbances it had hoped to curb.[7]
Influence on the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests
Throughout the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, the editorial remained a major bone of contention, as Party members argued about its message and students called for its retraction. General Secretary Zhao Ziyang, recognizing the editorial’s negative consequences, repeatedly made the suggestion among his colleagues to revise it. First, in a private conversation with Premier Li Peng, Zhao explained that though he himself supported the editorial, it had become “a real sore point” with students, creating an “us-versus-them mentality” that could be eased with a simple tweaking of the editorial’s tone.[8] Li, on the other hand, argued that the editorial could not be altered, first because it was completely accurate, but also because it was a manifestation of Deng Xiaoping’s views, which could not be questioned.[9] As the movement progressed into a hunger strike, Zhao again pushed to revise the editorial, with the belief that settling the sensitive topic would effectively ease tension.[10] Following his resignation, Zhao made one last gesture urging Deng to “change the official view of the student movement” from the editorial’s perspective,[11] but by this point, he had been discredited within the Party and his proposal was neglected.[12]
Around this same time in mid-May, an attempt to end the hunger strike with dialogue further displayed the editorial’s resonance. Speaking to Li Peng, student leader Wuer Kaixi identified the description of the movement as “turmoil” as a major issue concerning the hunger strikers.[13] He presented as a solution the publishing of a new, apologetic People’s Daily editorial, “repudiating the one published on April 26”.[13] Li in response denied ever labeling the movement as turmoil, and no apologetic editorial was published.[14]
No comments:
Post a Comment