There have been many reports lately suggesting the government might move soon to reform or dismantle its restrictive household registration, or hukou, system, an internal passport system that has left millions of rural migrants in China’s rapidly developing cities cut off from the full benefits of economic development and urbanization. It looks more likely, however, that pending reforms will mark only a slight shift, allowing rural migrants to gain local hukou status only in smaller cities. In the above cartoon, posted to Sina Weibo by artist “Cartoon Sinking Stone” (漫画沉石), a massive tanker is labeled “Hukou Reform,” but the ship is getting nowhere because it is propelled forward only by tiny, ineffectual oars labeled “pilot project.” It appears, meanwhile, that the ship is actually anchored on the opposite side.

There is now little doubt that the defining ideological debate in China this year will be that between constitutionalism and socialism.
For the beginnings of this story we have to wind back to early December last year, when Xi Jinping marked the 30th anniversary of China’s 1982 Constitution by saying: “We must firmly establish, throughout society, the authority of the Constitution and the law and allow the overwhelming masses to fully believe in the law.” Xi also said that “[no] organization or individual has the privilege to overstep the Constitution and the law, and any violation of the Constitution and the law must be investigated.”

[ABOVE: Xi Jinping speaks during 30th anniversary celebrations for China’s Constitution on December 5, 2012.]
Right on the heels of Xi Jinping’s speech, it became clear that political reform advocates in China were drawing strategic inspiration from Xi’s remarks, that they saw “firmly establishing the Constitution” as the ideal moderate strategy to push change on the basis of a document that already — or so they argued — constituted and represented a political consensus.
The Southern Weekly incident in January 2013 and the year’s inaugural edition of the journal Yanhuang Chunqiu (“The Constitution is a Consensus for Political Reform“) were a throwing down of the gauntlet. (READ: “Reformers Aim to Get China to Live Up to Own Constitution,” NYT, February 3, 2013.)
By late spring and early summer, the counterattacks against constitutionalism as a new way of framing the political reform debate had become relentless. Notable was a series of editorials in the Red Flag journal, which we wrote about here.
Most recently, there were three editorials in the overseas edition of the Party’s official People’s Daily, all issuing colorful attacks on constitutionalism (one likening it to “trying to catch fish in the trees”). The first of these editorials baldly declared: “Constitutionalism only belongs to capitalism, and it is not compatible with socialism” (宪政只属于资本主义，和社会主义无法兼容.).
It must be emphasized that the overseas edition of the People’s Daily IS NOT, exactly, the People’s Daily, by which I mean it cannot be construed as representing an official view to the extent that (albeit very problematically) the China edition of the People’s Daily can. That sounds complicated, I know. But just remember that even the hometown People’s Daily can become a battleground for internal Party struggles, and so is not a simple reflection of consensus. [READ: “What’s Up With the People’s Daily?“]
In this case, the overseas edition of the People’s Daily is being exploited by opponents of the constitutionalism drive, a case (if you will) of hitting line balls (打擦边球) politically. They are trading on the confusion over the nature and purpose of the overseas edition of the People’s Daily to try to suggest their views on constitutionalism are dominant and overriding.
There are still plenty of other voices out there on this issue that are worth reading. I’ll share just a couple.
Earlier this week, Yuan Ling (袁凌), the Caijing magazine feature writer and CMP fellow best known for his recent groundbreaking investigation of the Masanjia labor camp, wrote a long piece based on an in-depth interviews with the prominent legal scholar Jiang Ping (江平). In the piece, Jiang suggest the framing of this issue as a face-off between constitutionalism and socialism is entirely misleading, that the fundamental goals of both are compatible.
The following is just a taste:

“Jiang Ping: Socialism is a Good Thing, Not Incompatible with Constitutionalism”
August 12, 2013
Caijing, Yuan Ling (袁凌)
“I often say to He Weifang that socialism is a good thing, not something incompatible like fire and water with constitutionalism. Stalin and the Cultural Revolution, these were about dictatorship, not about socialism.” In his flat in Baolong Hot Springs Apartments, this is what the 83 year-old Jiang Ping has to say about the controversy over “socialism and constitutionalism.” This is the question he has thought about the most recently.
In Jiang Ping’s eyes, socialism is about fairness and justice, and this is inseparable from, and can work in concert with, the freedom and rule of law that constitutionalism represent, thereby arriving at the greatest point of commonality.

[ABOVE: Legal scholar Jiang Ping. Image by Caixin Online.]
A half century ago, a distortion happened between these two [socialism and constitutionalism] that resulted in a generation of disaster, and resulted also in the young Jiang Ping being branded a rightist. As Jiang Ping tells it, he was just one egg fortunate enough to have survived after the whole basket was overturned, though his shell had already been cracked.
But Jiang Ping suggests that a more apt metaphor might be a railroad tie under the train, that while it has been crushed by the force of the train going off the rails still remains unbroken, and still can bear up the pressures of the times and form a piece of the tracks leading on to rule of law; and then there is a new germination of ideas in its shade. This, perhaps, is one of the messages conveyed by the title of Jiang Ping’s oral memoir, Sinking and Rising (沉浮与枯荣).
The mind of this “railroad tie that is capable of thinking” is still turning, crying out, searching.

The next piece is written by Wang Jianxun (王建勋), an expert in constitutional law who also earned a PhD in political science at Indiana University-Bloomington. The piece, “How I See Constitutionalism,” appears in the latest edition of Yuanhuang Chunqiu.
Wang’s piece is framed as a straightforward explanation (Political Science 101) of what constitutionalism is all about — much needed considering the flood of claptrap the issue is getting.
Here is a taste:

“How I See Constitutionalism”
August 12, 2013
Wang Jianxun (王建勋)
Yanhuang Chunqiu
Recently, quite a number of publications have run pieces criticizing constitutionalism. This is something we’ve not seen very frequently over the past 100 years of our history. Since constitutional reforms were undertaken at the end of the Qing Dynasty, aside from those periods of totalitarian rule, the journey to constitutionalism has remained a fundamental bottom-line consensus for the people of our country.
Since these voices against constitutionalism emerged, not only have they been met with constant counter-criticism, but they have ignited a debate about constitutionalism within intellectual circles. We have seen in particular an ongoing debate between the “socialist constitutionalism camp” (社会主义宪政派 or 社宪派) and the “general constitutionalism camp” (泛宪派 or 普宪派). This debate has on the one hand exposed a deficiency of constitutional knowledge among the theoretical set (理论界), and on the other hand shown that people imagine very different things when they think about realizing constitutionalism. Against this backdrop, it’s of utmost urgency in China right now to clear up what constitutionalism actually means.
So what does “constitutionalism” mean? In a word, constitutionalism is a concept and a set of institutional insurances for checking the power of the government and protecting the basic rights and freedoms of individuals. Constitutionalism also entails a prescribed state of governance, in which checks on power and the primacy of law are effectively implemented. In this state, the power of the government is effectively limited, and the basic rights and freedoms of the individual are adequately protected. The core of constitutionalism is the limiting of power, and to this day, the most effective means discovered by humankind for the limiting of power is its separation, including horizontal decentralization (横向的分权) and vertical decentralization (纵向的分权). The first is what is called “separation of powers” (三权分立), and it means that legislative, executive and judicial powers are separate with mutual checks and balances. The latter is called “federalism” (联邦主义), and it means that national government and various local governments are separate with mutual checks and balances.

On August 8, close associates of Xu Zhiyong (许志永) released a video taken of the jailed rights campaigner during a recent visit to the jail in which he is being held by Chinese authorities. In the video, just over a minute long, Xu talks about the need for more citizens to stand up and defend their rights in “this age of absurdity.” [Here is an updated post of the video from the Wall Street Journal, with subtitles].
The video is taken by the visitor through the bars of a cell or visiting room where Xu is secured with handcuffs.

No matter how this society [of ours] is, how defeated or how absurd, this society needs brave citizens who can stand up and hold fast to their beliefs, who can take their rights, responsibilities and their dreams seriously. I’m proud to put the word ‘citizen’ before my name, and I hope everyone does the same, putting the word ‘citizen’ before their name. Let us unite, and work together to make our rights as citizens matter, to make our identities as citizens matter — working together to promote democracy, rule of law, fairness and justice in our country. Surely we can build a free, public-spirited, loving and good China.

Posts from journalists, scholars and activists have flooded across Chinese social media this afternoon reporting that Xiao Shu (笑蜀), the veteran Chinese journalist who recently issued an open call for the release of activist Xu Zhiyong, was taken into custody by security police in Beijing at around 2 p.m. today. CMP’s attempts to contact Xiao Shu directly through all known phone numbers and social media accounts have so far been unsuccessful.
Xiao Shu has been one of the most active proponents in recent months of broader citizen participation in social activism and change over a range of issues, what has been broadly called the New Citizen’s Movement.
Following the detention last month of social justice advocate Xu Zhiyong (许志永), Xiao Shu pushed actively for Xu’s release, demanding that those responsible be held accountable. Xiao Shu was also the author earlier this year of an open letter calling on China to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

A former commentator for Southern Weekend, the prominent paper at the center of nationwide protests over press controls earlier this year, Xiao Shu was most recently a member of the editorial board of Yanhuang Chunqiu, a leading liberal journal.
An investigative reporter for a prominent news magazine in China told CMP today that Xiao Shu has been under close scrutiny for months. Earlier this summer, the reporter was staying in the same hotel as Xiao Shu in Beijing’s Haidian District. At around 1 a.m. state security appeared outside Xiao Shu’s hotel room and asked that he join them downstairs. The investigative reporter accompanied Xiao Shu at first, but was immediately told to leave. Xiao Shu’s talk with state security went on for at least an hour, the reporter said. Xiao Shu later said they had insisted he leave Beijing. He refused, saying he had a right to remain in the city.

[ABOVE: A Weibo post by activist Tang Gula (唐古拉) reports that veteran journalist Xiao Shu has been “taken away.”]
The following is one of Xiao Shu’s latest writings, sent to CMP earlier this week. We will work on a translation of the piece over the next couple of days.

中间社会站出来
笑蜀
一
7月26日，天则经济研究所20周年庆典上，企业家任志强大声疾呼：许多人工的堤坝阻挡了鱼类洄游，威胁到鱼类的生存。必须拆除那些堤坝，让江河自由，让江河奔向海洋，不单自然界如此。这话刚落脚，马上响起雷鸣般的掌声。
早在十天前，即7月16日，企业家王石也有一段慷慨之辞。那天刚刚披露湖南企业家曾成杰的死讯。举国震惊。王石第一时间在微博上发声，承认在重庆企业家遭薄熙来黑打时自己“采取了不吭气的态度”，承认这是“懦弱错误的行为”。并宣示：对违反法律，侵犯财产、侵犯生命的权力部门，要明确说不！
而更早之前，当柳传志提醒“正和岛”同仁在商言商勿涉时政时，企业家王瑛就忍无可忍，不仅退岛以示抗议，而且发表了措辞强硬的声明，批评柳传志助长恐惧。她认为，恐惧没有道理，事实上企业家跟权力勾兑的风险才最高，相比之下，关心时政的风险低很多。王瑛的声明一经曝光，立即震动江湖，“在商言商”之争成了一个重大公共事件，而为媒体频频聚焦。
另一位重量级企业家王功权，则站出来力挺王瑛。他以一句话来概括他的态度：个体有选择自由，群体应承担更多责任。希望企业界同仁在中国的转型过程中发挥更大作用。
显然，上述个案没有一个是孤立的，它们是一连串事件。这一连串事件构成了一个趋势，那就是素来以懦弱、隐忍乃至犬儒著称的中国企业家，终于按捺不住了，终于要站出来说话了——站出来说话，以一个公民的姿态。
这是一个信号，中间社会觉醒的信号，处于体制内外结合部的中间地带崛起的信号。
二
必须承认，中国的确是一个过于复杂的国家。它不是一个通常意义上的国家，而是超国家体。而它之为超国家体，不是因为人口之众，也不是因为地域之广，主要就因为它之复杂。否则无法解释，为什么第三波第四波民主化摧枯拉朽，却都到中国的门口戛然而止。
第三波第四波让很多人有幻觉。他们眼里，中国巨变指日可待，因为苏东和北非提供了可复制的模式。但事实证明，这判断太乐观了。除了强化世界潮流浩浩汤汤的大叙事，在具体操作即战术层面，第三波第四波于中国转型而言，恰恰负面意义大于正面意义。因为苏东之变，对党内强化了反戈巴机制，以堵死内部变革之路。因为北非之变，对社会强化了反“颜色革命”尤其强化了网格化维稳，以堵死民间倒逼之路。而且不能不承认，这两方面的努力并非徒劳，党内反戈巴机制尤其大见成效，而令九零年代以来的每一届领导人无不战战兢兢，如履薄冰。
这就是历史的吊诡。别的转型国家每闯出一片天，即等于在中国关上了一扇门。我们刚刚还为别的国家的人民欢呼，回头却悲哀地发现自己脚下又少一条路。环球不同凉热，人家的节日，往往是我们自己的悲剧。竟有如斯结局，原因之一，是当局强大的反向学习能力。别的国家的每一次巨变，对当局都是一次难得的预警，让当局可以亡羊补牢。所以，第三波第四波往往不是动摇、而往往是固化了中国的专政体制。
既有三十年高增长所强化的国家财政能力，镇压和收买能力特别强大；更有史上罕见的特殊利益，保卫专政体制的动力特别强大；还有强大的反向学习能力，赋予专政体制特殊的柔韧性。同时拥有这三个层面的优势，是其他转型国家都不具备的。中国的复杂性可以多角度解读，但这三个层面的综合优势，则是所有复杂性中最重要的元素。
这就注定了中国的转型之路特别复杂、特别艰巨。突尼斯的一个小贩之死，马上延烧为全国性抗议，可中国有过多少比小贩之死严重百倍的人权惨案？台湾的一个美丽岛镇压，马上激怒整个社会，社会用选票把美丽岛受难者的太太、律师顶起来，形成新的抗争集群。但中国有过多少次美丽岛镇压？所有威权国家对转型的抵抗，相比中国都太小儿科了。所以，所有其他国家的转型经验，固然可以而且必须借鉴，但的确不可复制，不可照搬。在别的国家管用的办法，到中国的确往往失灵。
最典型的失灵，是中产阶级理论的失灵。通常认为，中产阶级崛起之后，将成为转型的主力。但在当下中国知识界，抨击“中产阶级”却成为时尚，主要就因为对中产阶级的失望，认为中国的中产阶级没有像其他国家的中产阶级那样，承担其推动转型的历史责任。这抨击不无道理，中国中产阶级的局限性确实太大。但问题是，中国的水土注定长不出符合国际标准的中产阶级，因而用国际标准来套，来责之中国的中产阶级，其方法论本来就是错误的。中国的中产阶级注定负荷不了那样沉重的期待。
中产阶级不行，哪个阶级行？工人阶级么？早在90年代国企改革时就整个解体了，成建制的工人阶级早就子虚乌有。农民阶级么？当代中国从来不存在完整的农民阶级，因为城市化尤其因为2.5亿农民工进城，农民阶级更无从谈起。农民工阶级么？原子化的农民工只有数量没有质量，根本就不构成一个阶级。资本家阶级么？大资本家早被权贵同化，中小资本家也在权力的宰制下支离破碎。
不独中产阶级无力，其实被统治者中的任何一个阶级，都是无力的，依靠任何一个单一的阶级，都是不靠谱的。如果没有社会各阶级的支撑，单单政治社会的两极对抗，则更不靠谱，因为政治社会的两极对比更不对等。
中国转型因此需要大战略，超越所有转型国家既有经验之上的大战略。尤其是超越单一阶级推动论，超越政治社会两极对抗，超越政治社会两极对抗基础上的推倒重来你死我活。它最重要的元素应该是开放和兼容。即最大限度地向体制内外开放，最大限度地争取体制内外一切可以推动转型的资源，尤其向处于体制内外结合部的、兼具了体制内外双重优势的中间社会开放。
这就是中间道路，即在政治社会之外，更凝聚整个中间社会的共识，集结整个中间社会的力量，形成最大限度的合力，倒逼中国转型。如前所述，中国转型的阻力是空前的，推动转型的力量也必须是空前的。惟有集结空前的力量、形成空前大格局的转型战略，才谈得上大战略。如果中间社会缺位，所谓空前的力量、所谓空前大格局就都徒托空言。如何调动中间社会，因而是转型大战略应当致力的关键突破。
三
这正是许志永们的意义，也正是新公民运动的意义。
许志永发起的新公民运动，概括地说，无非是以自由、公义、爱为共同价值，实现中间社会各阶级的互动互助，在此基础上推进跨阶级、跨行业的公民合作，尤其是同城公民合作，最终以公民合作的集体力量，走向公民社会，推动和平转型。
这也正是“新公民运动”尤其是许志永获咎之由。因为，中间社会的聚集、公民合作的扩大，给了不受制约的权力以巨大压力。反弹是必然的，“新公民运动”注定要遭遇劫难。
但我们不可因此沮丧。许志永们固然求仁得仁，以身伺虎。但他们的自我牺牲并不是没有价值。中间社会的坚决抗议就印证了他们的价值，也印证了新公民运动的力量。在相继抓捕15名新公民运动的参与者之后，有关当局最后朝许志永下手，显然是有备而来，要将新公民运动一网打尽，杀一儆百。有关当局的这个如意算盘，并非没有根据，通常情况下，镇压是起作用的。但这次不能不让他们意外和失望。当镇压的钢鞭高高举起，民间并没有如通常那样望风而逃，噤若寒蝉，反而一批一批公民迎着钢鞭勇敢地挺身而出，大声说不。新公民运动并没有被镇压下去，她的核心理念自由、公义、爱，反而因为镇压像闪电一样传遍全国，镇压反而成了新公民运动的活广告，成了新公民运动的反向推手。
最生动的例子，莫过于茅于轼等五人第一时间发起的联署抗议。尽管联署遭有关当局彻底封杀，所有网络通道都被掐断，只能依靠最原始的方式即口口相传的方式来传播，但仅仅一周时间，即已征集到两千多个公民的签名。这中间固然少不了王功权、王瑛等企业家，以及何方、郑渊洁等知识界名流，但占最大比例的还是普通人，他们抗风险能力低，却能在危难时站出来，这才是最感人的。他们中有厨师、酿酒师、理发师、设计师、工程师、会计师，有医生、程序员、销售员，有农民工、农民、个体户、的士司机、建筑工人、家庭主妇，有军人、警察、公务员，甚至有道人、僧人。几乎遍及所有的阶级、所有的行业，尤其遍及中产和底层，活生生一个中间社会的投影。
这从一个侧面反映了中间社会对新公民运动、对公民社会建设的广泛认同。这种广泛认同，和本文开篇记录的任志强、王石等工商巨子的公民宣示，恰成呼应，折射了当下中国最重要的趋势，即中间社会崛起的趋势，即普通人勇气下限提升的趋势。
为自己的理念受难，是幸运的。当此中间社会崛起之际、普通人勇气下限提升之际受难，则更幸运，因为这时受难，能把受难者的光和热发挥到最大限度，辐射整个社会。于此不难理解，为什么许志永们的一帧帧铁窗小影，都面带微笑。他们的心底是阳光的，他们的未来也是阳光的。可笑的只是有关当局：民不畏死，乃何以死惧之？呼啸而起的钢鞭再吓不住人了，一拨又一拨公民成长起来了，他们不怕了。许志永们将前赴后继。
（作者笑蜀，前南方周末首席评论员，现为北京《炎黄春秋》杂志编委，北京传知行社会经济研究所研究员）

“Correct guidance of public opinion,” the notion media must adhere to the discipline guidelines of the Chinese Communist Party in order to maintain social and political stability, remains the crux of press controls in China. But now, under the leadership of Xi Jinping, “correct guidance” is being retrofitted for the “Chinese dream,” the ruling Party’s latest leadership vision.
The first reaffirmation of the media’s propaganda role in the context of the “Chinese dream” came back in April, as scores of state-run media were lined up behind a statement called, “Creating Positive Energy for the Chinese Dream with a Fierce Sense of Social Responsibility.”

[ABOVE: Installed in a park in the southern city of Guangzhou, the ship of the Chinese dream spells out the slogan’s three central aspects: national strength, the rejuvenation of the Chinese people, and prosperity for the people.]
A piece posted today by the official Xinhua News Agency again emphasizes the need for media to adhere to “correct guidance” in order to create “positive energy” for the realization of the Chinese dream. Typical of Party writings about ideological discipline in the media, the tone of the piece is highly moralistic, suggesting media in China today have suffered a “downward slide” in values. They have erred from the “mainstream,” meaning the Party line, to cynically pursue negative coverage and amplify “rumours” emerging on the internet.
“[S]ome media workers have lost their sense of ideological place,” says the piece.
The answer is for media to remember their proper role as the “builders of socialism,” “encouraging the people to work tirelessly for national strength and general prosperity” and striving to “advocate the realization of the Chinese Dream as the loftiest note of the age.”
The tension remains between control, the highest imperative, and maintaining credibility, a tension we have seen at least since Hu Jintao’s 2002 policy of the “three closenesses.” Media must be truthful and relevant, because therein lies credibility and influence — but they must not forget to ensure that “truth” serves the Party’s fundamental interests.
Selected translations follow:

How Media Can Create Positive Energy for the “Chinese Dream”
July 29, 2013
In mid-April, the All-China Journalist’s Association and 25 [state] media including the People’s Daily, Xinhua News Agency, Seeking Truth, the PLA Daily, Guangming Daily, Economic Daily, China National Radio and China Central Television released “Creating Positive Energy for the Chinese Dream with a Fierce Sense of Social Responsibility” . . . Well then, how do media at various levels create positive energy for the “Chinese Dream” with a fierce sense of social responsibility?
1. Singing the Chinese Dream as the crescendo of the age, positively guiding and encouraging the people to work tirelessly for national strength and the prosperity of the people
In recent years, under market pressure, the value expectations of media and news workers have suffered a downhill slide, and in the media sphere market-driven media have now pressured mainstream [Party] media, and new media have pressured traditional media, passively resulting in a lowbrow atmosphere (媚俗之风), blurring the role of [media] as tools of the Party and government leadership, and some media have even sunk to the level of adopting online hearsay and transmitting online rumor. . .
In order to realize the Chinese Dream, media must take action and do their part. In this new historical era, news workers are not “crownless kings” separate from the masses, nor are they observers separated from actual reality. Rather, they have a sacred duty to “guide the people with positive public opinion” . . .
2. Adhering to positive guidance of public opinion, bearing responsibility as the documenters and promoters of development as they promote the Chinese Dream
News media are the magnifying glass of society, they are the amplifiers of public opinion in society. As diversity in society has challenged the mainstream [Party] ideology, some media workers have lost their sense of ideological place. They believe that journalists have discourse power and influence, and they have grown indifferent to positive channeling [of public opinion] and prefer to pile up negative reports. Some journalists are accustomed to presenting a one-side picture in their reports. For example, in carrying out supervision by public opinion [or investigative reporting], some news workers do not seek to relieve tensions by holding constructive standpoints, encouraging mutual understanding and respect in different groups, but rather seek to kick up a fuss, fan the fires and create opposition. In fact, the social impact of reports, whether political correct or incorrect, is immense. The is particularly true under the new circumstances we face, in which there is a whole series of new problems, the situation is complex, and there are many sensitive issues. This places even higher expectations on news reports, and it is imperative that editors and reporters play their proper role in doing their work.
3. Taking the truth as the life of the news, preserving the accuracy and impartiality of the news, raising the credibility of the media while advocating for the Chinese Dream
To sum up, only by positively guiding and encouraging the people to work tirelessly for national strength and general prosperity, only by taking on the responsibility of being constructors of socialism, the documenters of development, making earnest efforts to maintain the truth and impartiality of the news, by making the preservation of credibility one’s professional goal, accurately handling the relationship between social efficiency and economic efficiency, can [journalists] advocate for the realization of the Chinese Dream as the loftiest note of the age . . .

On July 17, 2013, watermelon vendor Deng Zhengjia died after being brutally beaten by urban management officers, or chengguan, in the city of Linwu in China’s central Hunan province. The chengguan are local authorities charged with maintaining order and cleanliness in China’s cities. Since their emergence in the late 1990s, the chengguan have earned a reputation for brutality in enforcing local regulations. The Deng Zhijia case once again exposed the lack of sufficient limitations on the conduct of chengguan in cities across the country. In the above cartoon, posted by artist Li Yongqiu (李永秋) to Sina Weibo, a watermelon violently cracked open bleeds across the pavement as the shields and clubs of the chengguan loom behind.

On July 20, 2013, a man identified in Chinese media as Ji Zhongxing detonated a homemade bomb in the Beijing International Airport. Ji, who claimed that he had been paralyzed in 2005 after a brutal attack by guards, had sought justice unsuccessfully for years. Ji’s act of violence prompted some soul-searching in China’s media and on the internet. Many said they understood Ji’s anger, and that violence was bred by growing inequality combined with an ineffective justice system. Wu Qiang, a political scientist at Tsinghua University said desperate acts like Ji’s “are the ultimate acts by those at the bottom of society who are unable to find justice.” [SEE ALSO: “Why a Reporter Feels Sympathy for an Airport Bomber.”] In the above cartoon, posted by “cartoon hobbyist” Li Yongqiu (李永秋) to Sina Weibo, a helpless lamb is pushed to a cliff’s edge, pursued by a pack of vicious wolves. As he awaits certain death, the lamb’s wordless dread gradually transforms over his head into a massive grenade, the fuse burning. The cartoon is called: How Bombs are Forged (炸弹是怎样炼成的).

An open “protest letter” signed today by more than 400 Chinese citizens — including well-known journalists, lawyers, academics and businesspeople — called on Chinese authorities to release Xu Zhiyong, a prominent lawyer and rights campaigner who was detained on July 16.
This latest domestic action over the Xu Zhiyong case was initiated by liberal economist Mao Yushi (茅于轼), Chinese venture capitalist Wang Gongquan (王功权), and veteran journalists Xiao Shu (笑蜀) and He Sanwei (何三畏).

[ABOVE: Clockwise from upper left: Wang Gongquan, Mao Yushi, Xiao Shu and He Sanwei, the initiators of a protest letter today calling for the release of lawyer Xu Zhiyong.]
Both Xiao Shu and He Sanwei are long-time contributors to Southern Weekly, an outspoken newspaper in the southern city of Guangzhou that was the focus of national protests over press controls in January this year. Southern Weekly was also the newspaper to which US President Barack Obama chose to grant a coveted exclusive interview during his November 2009 official visit to China, a decision that rankled with Chinese officials.
Xiao Shu, a former CMP fellow, reported that his e-mail account was attacked at midday today. Each time he attempted to logon to his account, he was kicked out, he said, and the account now appears to be permanently disabled.
Today’s protest letter includes a bulleted list of five demands:

1. That Xu Zhiyong and all citizens who have been detained for taking part in the New Citizen’s Movement be released without charge.
2. That the legal rights of the above-mentioned persons are fully protected while they are under detention and arrest.
3. That restrictions and bans on the internet and the media be lifted, allowing media to freely report, ensuring that the people’s right to know in the Xu Zhiyong case is protected, that government conduct is out in the open, transparent and subject to the scrutiny of society.
4. The government authorities must, using the Xu Zhiyong case as a mirror, must engage in deep reflection, adjusting its policies, creating a tolerant and favorable environment for the healthy development of civil society.
5. The unbridled repression of Xu Zhiyong and the New Citizen’s Movement not only damages rule of law and infringes on human rights, but also does serious damage to national prestige and has a pronounced harmful impact on society — therefore, relevant [government] agencies and responsible persons must be held legally responsible for these actions.

The original Chinese-language letter follows:

许志永事件之公民社会抗议书
7月16日，“新公民运动”发起人许志永博士在被非法软禁长达三个月之后，被北京市警方刑拘。而在此之前，警方已经刑拘或正式逮捕了“新公民运动”至少15名参与者。政府当局全面压制“新公民运动”的意图显而易见。
这是一起极其严重的事件。从远处说是对斯大林模式的所谓“无产阶级专政”的延续，从近处说是对十年刚性维稳的延续，就当下说更是对习近平先生承诺的“全面实施宪法”的公开背弃。
反宪政潮流因舆论的顽强狙击已经退潮，但对公民社会的压制仍甚嚣尘上，而且直接动用国家机器，实施定点打击。许志永和他的伙伴们遭遇的厄运，是这方面的最新案例。
“新公民运动”以温和理性的方式推进中国公民社会建设，许志永及其伙伴们的行动是在践行现行宪法第35条，完全处于合法范围之内，而对他们的打击压制则是对宪法与法律的公然践踏。
作为公民社会的倡导者和推动者，我们强烈抗议并紧急呼吁：
1、无罪释放许志永及所有因参与“新公民运动”而被捕的公民。
2、以上公民在被拘及被捕期间，其法定权利必须得到全面保障。
3、解除网络封锁和媒体禁令，让媒体自由报道，以保证公众对许志永事件的知情权，让政府行为公开、透明并接受社会监督。
4、政府当局必须以许志永事件为鉴，深刻反思、调整政策，为公民社会的健康发展创造宽松友善的制度环境。
5、对许志永和“新公民运动”的全面压制不仅破坏法治、侵犯人权，而且严重损害了国家信誉，具有明显的社会危害性，必须追究相关部门和相关负责人的法律责任。
我们将以公民的身份保持对许志永事件的持续关注，保持对真相的持续追问，保持对政府当局的持续压力。直到许志永博士和所有因参与“新公民运动”而被捕的公民重获自由为止。
同意加入联署的公民，请注明真实姓名，身份，所在地区，发信到联署邮箱: [email protected]
发起人：
茅于轼、王功权、笑 蜀、何三畏
联署人（以下共446人）：
阿 信，独立学者，现居成都
艾建强，职员，北京
艾晓明，教授，广州
艾小芹，职员，北京
毕 康，自由职业，诗人，江苏南京
长 平，时评人，旅居德国
谌 平，酒店从业人员，江西九江
蔡 庆，工程师，上海
崔 锦，职员，北京
崔 英，退休职工，山东潍坊
崔金友，退休职工，山西大同
陈德升，建筑工程师，海南海口
陈宏兵，公民，镇江
陈明祺，台湾清华大学社会学研究所副教授，新竹
陈建刚，律师，北京
陈家炳，个体工商户，福建南平
陈庆秋，华南理工大学经济与贸易学院经济系教员，广东广州
陈开明，公民，湖北恩施
陈启棠，公民，广东
陈曙杰，公民，湖南衡阳
陈武权，公民，广东
陈晓清，公民，现居广州
陈云飞，业余驯兽师，四川成都
陈柞良，自由职业者，四川成都
陈子亮，小老板，浙江杭州
陈照云，公民，湖南
陈宗瑶，温州，公民
陈泽尧，公司职员，厦门翔安区
柴金元，工人，江苏南京
柴子文，媒体人，香港
成怀山，淮安，公民
成玉兰，公司职员，北京
曹 辉，工人，江苏省邳州市
曹必琼，律师，福建厦门
曹劲柏，公民，北京市，[email protected]
曹志刚，IT工程师，上海
蔡 良，工程师，北京海淀区
蔡咏梅，编辑，香港
车宏年，自由撰稿人，山东
褚庆界，私营业者，山东枣庄
常旭光，公民，贵州贵阳
蔡淑芳，公民，香港
仇森模，建筑工人，广西钦州
谌洪果，西安，教师
丁 坚，公民，杭州
丁 欣，关注教育公平的家长，北京西城区
丁小龙，公民，浙江宁波
邓 乐，大学生，广西桂平
邓大龙，教师，湖南
邓林华，公民，湖南
邓淑珍，公民，广东湛江
杜新荣，从商，山西大同
杜智斌，公民，广州
段汉杰，公民，郑州
端启宪，公民，广西南宁
董文杰，公民，山西运城
费 峰，医生，河北
费 瓦，公民，广州
冯 玲，公民，湖北潜江
付 冠，随迁子女家长，北京
付国华，公民，江西广昌
付铁柱，内蒙古通辽
付永刚，律师，山东济南
范标文，律师，广东深圳
范力涵，中兴通讯系统工程师，南京
房树梅，公民，山东烟台
关 军，作家，北京
谷 中，残疾人维权者，安徽宿州
高 飞，公民，郑州
高 垒，公司职员，北京
高 松，农民，北京
高 扬，民间学者，北京
高勤荣，媒体人，旅居北京
关达华，工程师，广州
郭建和，公民，广州
郭永丰，公民，现居深圳
郭于华，教授，清华大学
郭宇宽，学者，北京
郭飞雄，民间学者，广州
苟志辉，退休工人，四川南充
戈觉平，苏州，公民
顾晓峰，公民，江苏常熟
巩胜利，学者，北京
华 泽，纪录片导演，旅居纽约
黄翠艳，自由职业，上海闵行
黄晓雷，教师，江苏启东
黄友成，公民，河北唐山
黄一龙，作家，成都
黄智勇，农民，广州
黄治安，公民，四川宜宾
何 轲，广告从业者，广州
何小华，退休国企干部，广州
何永全，自由撰稿人，上海
何忠洲，NGO从业者，广东
郝建强，企业职员，河北邢台
郝 建，教授，北京
郝 群（笔名慕容雪村），作家，成都
胡 城，公民，江苏常熟
胡 佳，公民，北京
胡 军，公民，深圳新安
胡 平，学者，旅居纽约
胡常根，农民工，上海
胡高友，农民工，广东中山市
胡仁涛，科研工作者，安徽合肥
胡石根，自由职业，北京
胡秀兰 公民，云南昆明
胡云飞（网名“染香姐姐”），自由职业，广州
侯远飞，基督徒，湖南长沙
金光鸿，律师，旅居美国
金继武，媒体人，广州
金雪花，从商，苏州
景军平，国企员工，河北秦皇岛
江天勇，律师，北京
蒋继龙，自由职业者，江西樟树
蒋亚林，结石宝宝家长，浙江金华
姜绍全，农民工，温州
姜增伟，公司职员，山东烟台
季雪鸿，农民，山东临沂
孔小东，个体从业者，安徽合肥
冷 海，农牧业，山东
李 冰，记者，北京
李 红，公民，浙江台州
李 靖，公民，北京
李 军，从商，江苏淮安
李 君，法学博士，律师，重庆
李 鹏，工程师，广东惠州
李 强，作家，旅居纽约
李 青，美容师，上海徐汇
李 新，编辑，北京
李 毓，发电厂职员，陕西略阳
李 勇，自由职业，武汉
李 志，工程师，上海
李成立，公民，河北保定
李大康，公民，重庆
李大同，媒体人，北京
李德鑫，自由职业，广西柳州
李革林，销售人员，成都
李洪波，公民，北京通州区
李和平，律师，北京
李化平，公民，上海
李海军，农民工，江苏无锡
李继红，工程师，山东
李金革，公民，山西太原
李剑芒，学者，旅居荷兰
李良德（网名苍蝇01），个体从业者，现居河北唐山
李启涛，公民，北京
李绍民，公民，宁夏银川
李太云，公司高管，福建泉州
李永忠，小老板，四川彭山
李泽慧，非京藉随迁子女家长，现居北京
李志红，公民，山西忻州
李旭东，中国经营报记者，山西太原
李兴隆（网名6-乡山故水），公司职员
李应峰，公民，福建漳州
李雅娟，公民，辽宁鞍山
李燕双，企业主，北京
李昨承，电商运营业者，四川绵阳
李志坚，自由职业，云南昆明官渡区
李占民，公司职员，北京
刘 杰，公民，山东烟台
刘 华，公民，遵义
刘 明，律师，湖南长沙
刘 明，个体从业者，郑州
刘 敬，公民，湖南株洲
刘 巍，律师，辽宁
刘 啸，公民，北京昌平
刘 勇，僧人，山东高密
刘 瑜，教师，清华大学政治学系
刘飞跃，公民，湖北
刘洪凯，工人，盘锦
刘金滨，律师，山东
刘家财，监理工程师，湖北宜昌
刘继民，公司职员，北京
刘军兴，公民，现居北京昌平
刘军宁，学者，北京
刘京生，自由职业，北京
刘建新，平面设计师 中国工业设计协会会员，山东烟台
刘青霖，个体工商户，吉林白山
刘四仿，公民，现居广东
刘士辉，摘牌律师，广州
刘守刚，公民，河北秦皇岛
刘卫国，律师，山东济南
刘新花，公民，上海
刘玉亮，公民，现居北京
刘绪贻，武汉大学教授
刘远远，公民，现居杭州西湖区
刘志强，律师，陕西
卢红旗，民企技术总监，杭州西湖区
黎小龙，公民，广西
林京海，公民，广州
罗 茜，律师，湖南邵阳
罗桂华，建筑工人，湖南武冈
罗俊杰，工人，广东肇庆
罗加鹏，中共党员，军队转业干部，现住上海
罗模忠，自由创业者，四川宜宾
罗世铮，成都，公司经理
罗文洋 ，法律学人，广东
雷思政，自由职业者，湖南常德
雷永明，工人，湖南郴州
雷渊贵，自由职业，广东东莞
梁 辉，公民，广东深圳
梁述华，公民，重庆
梁太平，笔名尾生，公民，湖南长沙
陸贵贵，公民，现居中山
龙 飞，打工者，现居江苏南通
龙乐海，公务员，江西吉安
吕国利，民间学者，山东青岛
陆自范，公民，浙江
林宏杰，自由职业，广东茂名
林止月，公司法务，北京海淀区
赖建康，媒体人，四川乐山
黎雄兵，律师，北京
马 威，公民，温州
马晨皓，公民，甘肃兰州
马云龙，媒体人，河南
马永涛，公民，河北廊坊
毛汨平，公民，湖南长沙
孟维娜，NGO从业者，云南
孟俊涛，公民，新疆乌鲁木齐
梅中武，教师，湖北鄂州
蔺其磊，北京市瑞凯律师事务所律师
欧春花，公民，广东深圳
歐彪峰，公民，湖南株洲
彭 伟，自由职业，现居广州天河
彭建军，农民工，安徽阜阳
潘飞山，公民，旅居北京
潘俊朋，公民，陕北
裴利鹏，外企管理，上海
乔 木，学者，北京
乔春鸿，公民，济南
乔光习,自由职业者,上海
乔曙亮，技术人员，北京
寇建玲，公务员，河南郑州
秦家君，律师，北京
秦信江，自由职业，江西南昌
屈俊虎，企业家，陕西西安
屈坤磊，法务，北京朝阳区
钱新利，个体从业者，安庆
齐志勇，六四伤残者，北京
任 铭，公民，广东深圳
任爱娃，农民，山西永济
任青霞，教师，广东惠州
任中选，农民，山西永济
荣君明，公民，山东威海
芮美荣，公民，北京
冉红兵，公民，现居浙江杭州
冉云飞，编辑，成都
阮云华，作家，珠海
宋 琢，IT人，湖南长沙
宋志红，工程师，大连
沈 脉，公务员，贵州安顺
沈益群，公司职员，福建莆田
石 武，灵活就业者，西安
石玉林，《民生观察网》网站编辑，湖北宜昌
孙立勇，工人，旅居悉尼
孙宇晨，学生，北京
孙志刚，山东，公民
苏福平，项目经理，武汉江夏区
苏小和，诗人，经济学者，北京
苏义明，学生，黑龙江哈尔滨
申佳钰，学生，黑龙江
邵长波，自由职业者，青岛
邵建文，造价工程，江苏南京
隋牧青，律师，广州
史明珍，随迁子女家长，现居通州区
陶 波，技术员，天津
滕 彪，学者，北京
田 进，公民，湖北恩施
田 亮，职员，天津
田发全，公民，陕西汉中
田亚超，农民工 河北石家庄
唐 彬，媒体人，广东
唐爱玲，公民，天津
唐才龙，独立撰稿人，四川
唐荆陵，公民，广州
唐宪彬，公民，山东济宁
汤建宇，车间管理人员，江苏省张家港市
谭道强，公民，现居江西抚州
谭毅强，公民，江西抚州
童文杰，公民，湖南汉寿县
汪 华，公民，江苏太仓
汪 蛟，公民，安徽安庆
汪 廖，律师，浙江温州
汪江海，医生，上海莘庄
王 成（王楚襄），律师，杭州
王 藏，艺术家，北京
王 洪，公民，北京
王 晗，数学辅导老师，北京
王 平，公司高管，江苏常州
王 奇，公民，陕西
王 群，建筑工，墨尔本
王 尚，公民，山东泰山
王 跃，服装贸易从业者，湖北武汉
王 云，美容师，上海徐汇
王 伟，公民，广东鹤壁
王 正，产品经理，上海
王必君，公民，广东
王晨光，大学应届毕业生，安徽合肥
王冬梅，无社会养老和医疗保障老人，上海
王衡庚，前浙江财经大学教授，杭州
王金洪，地质队员，内蒙古呼伦贝尔
王进京，厨师，北京
王江松，教师，北京
王建勋，教师，北京
王利成，公民，河南商丘
王龙蒙，戏剧工作者，旅居法国
王力雄 作家 北京
王淑艳，公民，浙江黄岩
王思远，学生，合肥
王文平，糕点师，江西抚州
王五四，自由撰稿人，杭州
王卫华，律师，上海
王晓峰，自由职业，上海
王晓鹏，软件工程师，上海
王晓青，职业经理人，西安
王晓霞，公民，北京
王雪臻，公民，莱阳
王懿金，公民，海南东方市
王阳宁，自由职业，湖南邵阳
王友雄，工人，广东
王泽民，公司高管。武汉市东西湖区
吴 昊，银行职员，江苏南京
吴 淦，自由职业，福建厦门
吴 伟，独立学者，北京
吴金圣，作家，北京
吴祚来，学者，旅居纽约
温 航，新闻从业者，福建厦门
温克坚，学者，浙江
伍 雷，律师，北京
伍晓涛，公司职员，湖南娄底
谢 丹，企业职员，上海
谢 涛，在读博士，上海
谢亨津，公民，深圳
谢明华，教师，河北
谢镕丞，商人，广东省清远
徐 彪，工人，上海徐汇
徐 皓，公民，安徽省
徐 娟，个体，上海徐汇
徐 健，工人，上海徐汇
徐 琳，建筑高级工程师，广州
徐 强，工人，上海徐汇
徐 旭，文艺批评家，湖北
徐益民，公民，上海
徐冬梅，公民，黑龙江省
徐瑞芳，编辑，现居北京
徐友渔，学者，北京
徐志戎（笔名肉唐僧），作家，大连
熊 伟，民间学者，北京
熊崛南，教师，云南彝良
夏业良，学者，北京
夏子期，外企职员，广东深圳
许 生，自由职业，深圳
许林铭，自由职业，居住地台湾
许医农，编辑，北京
野 渡，作家，广州
闫 巍，公民，山西长治
于 全，律师，成都
于 陆，自由职业者，河南巩义
袁 剑，自由职业，四川眉山
袁 颺，学者，北京
袁天开，公民，广东深圳
袁雪成，苏州，教师
袁新亭，公民，广州
杨 波，公民，福建厦门
杨 帆，产品设计师，现居广州
杨 勇，公民，南昌
杨达清，公司职员，现居深圳
杨林海，公民志愿者，北京朝阳区
杨培培，从商，苏州
杨守文，公民，甘肃镇原
杨秀英，退休职工，山西大同
杨性选，个体工商户，浙江台州
杨子立，学者，北京
杨子云，媒体人，北京
姚立法，教师，湖北潜江
姚志勇，工程师，北京石景山区
鄢烈山，媒体人，广州
鄢铭江，在校学生，广西
叶彩红，供职事业单位，浙江
叶廷芳，学者，翻译家，中国社科院研究员，苏黎世大学荣誉博士，第九、第十两届全国政协委员
殷德义，公民，北京海淀
游精佑，公民，福建
俞庆好，公民，安徽六安
郁葱林，学生，上海徐汇
郁建国，个体，上海徐汇
郁建洪，工人，上海徐汇
郁建华，工人，上海徐汇
郁建友，工人，上海徐汇
颜海滔，自由职业，广东湛江
禹燕飞，公民，湖南
易曙光，公民，湖南长沙
尹正安，公民，湖南邵阳
郑 霖，自由职业者，北京
仲 超，央企员工，江苏宿迁
钟 文，工程师，湖北荆州
章 毅，教师，安徽
章 文，媒体人，北京
张 波，公司职员，四川成都
张 浩，工人，山西临汾
张 昆，公民，江苏徐州
张 磊，律师，北京
张 勇，公民，四川
张爱文，随迁子女家长，北京
张传付，农民，河南濮阳县
张达宁，自由职业，黑龙江哈尔滨
张昆仑，公民，北京
张良生（笔名张三一言），独立时评人，香港
张丽远，大一学生，浙江温州
张荣平，自由职业，湖南郴州
张汝俊，自由职业者，上海
张书铭，自由职业，湖南长沙
张建党，公民，北京昌平
张千帆，学者，北京大学
张若尘，教员，河北唐山
张善光，公民，湖南
张拓木，互联网工作者，湖北荆州
张小青，农民，自由职业，浙江临安
张彦萍，公民，北京
张永攀，公民，北京
张幼南，退休职工，江苏扬州
张燕生，律师，南京
曾 蓉，公民，广州
曾国凡，公民，江西南昌
曾建平，农民工，深圳
曾庆彬，公民，广东潮州
赵 牧，媒体人，北京
赵 勇，全职爸爸，北京
赵廷国，工程师，江苏扬州
赵修亮，电子商务，湖南邵阳
赵永林，律师，山东
朱东华，公民，上海浦东
朱学平，西南政法大学行政法学院教师，重庆
朱智勇，学者，重庆
周 民，新疆生产建设兵团基层工作者，新疆石河子
周 贤，农民工，海南文昌
周 翔，通信工程师，安徽
周里应，公民，广东深圳
周维林，公民，安徽合肥
周志远，公民，江苏常州
周选枢，脱党打工的大学生，浙江宁波
占海特，失学少年公民，上海
占全喜，自由职业者，上海
邹海耀，公民，湖南长沙
翟明磊，公民记者，上海
查建英，作家，北京
钟奕剑，工程师，四川成都

Participants of China’s New Citizen’s Movement, a grassroots social campaign launched by lawyer and activist Xu Zhiyong (许志永), issued a statement today objecting to Xu’s recent detention and calling for greater attention to his case.
The letter, apparently drafted by Chinese investor Wang Gongquan (王功权) and veteran journalist Xiao Shu (笑蜀) (the author of a petition earlier this year calling on China’s National People’s Congress to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), called the New Citizen’s Movement a “movement of social renewal and reform led by citizens themselves,” its objectives to promote constitutionalism and civil society.
“There is no amount of intimidation or bribery that can divide us,” the statement said.
A full translation follows:

Our Statement on the Xu Zhiyong Incident
We, the participants in the New Citizen’s Movement, compelled by a sense of duty, must stand up and make our views known as the initiator of the New Citizen’s Movement, Xu Zhiyong, faces detention:
1. First, we must object to [the actions of] the authorities concerned. Before he was taken into custody, Xu Zhiyong had already been under house arrest for three months, and there were no judicial procedures whatsoever involved. This is a classic example of the illegal deprivation of personal liberty. Even when [this issue] was beyond the limits of our tolerance, we continued to exercise restraint. Now, we can no longer tolerate [these actions], because our restraint was not answered by restraint on the part of the authorities. Looking back now, it seems we were complicit in the abuses of power perpetrated by the relevant authorities [in this case]. In order to protect the human rights and civil rights of Xu Zhiyong, in order to prevent authorities traveling even further down this path of error, we must say NO to this sabotage of the legal system and especially to this violation of human and civil rights by the authorities. Otherwise, we have not done our utmost to assist Xu Zhiyong and uphold our responsibility as citizens to check public power. And how then can we face our own consciences?
2. We believe the authorities are in error in placing Xu Zhiyong under house arrest and subjecting him to criminal detention. But as citizens we have the utmost respect for the law, and we hope this problem can be resolved through legal channels. We encourage the authorities to act with the fullest respect for the laws they have themselves advanced, and not to trifle with the law. To this end, it is our hope that every aspect of the Xu Zhiyong case accords with modern legal standards of fairness, openness and independence, that it not be subject to political interference or the application of any invisible rules. Xu Zhiyong’s legal rights must be protected. His lawyer’s right to act in his defense must be protected. The public’s right to know and the media’s right to free reporting must be thoroughly protected. We call on the public at this juncture to exercise the greatest possible degree of supervision of the relevant authorities, and we call on media outside China to report all aspects of this case with the utmost sense of journalistic professionalism. Attention is power; a united gaze can transform our destiny.
3. Xu Zhiyong was the initiator of the New Citizen’s Movement, but freedom and equality are defining characteristics of the New Citizen’s Movement – and though the initiator, Xu Zhiyong is only an equal participant in the New Citizen’s Movement. The New Citizen’s Movement will not lose momentum due to Xu Zhiyong’s misfortunes. We will continue to push ahead with the New Citizen’s Movement within the Constitution and the law, drawing on the fragile power we have as ordinary citizens.
4. The New Citizen’s Movement and its historic mission have two aspects. The first is political, promoting through peaceful means the transition of our country to constitutionalism. The second is social, which means promoting the modern transition of our society from a “people’s society” – in fact, a society of feudal subjects – to a civil society. The keystone of constitutionalism is the protection of human rights and the limiting of power. To this end, we have already called on the National People’s Congress to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And we have pressed through petition for the open declaration of property and assets held by public officials. In the arena of social reform, we have promoted equal rights in education, beginning with better access to college entrance examinations by migrant youth. We will continue to push ahead with the New Citizen’s Movement in both of these arenas. We understand that the road is long, but we will not give up our beliefs, and we will not slacken our efforts.
5. It is our firm conviction that the New Citizen’s Movement is well intentioned, not hostile – that it is constructive, not destructive. This positive and constructive attitude is something China is in most urgent need of right now. In China today it is not only the natural environment that has been recklessly destroyed. China’s social environment is being pushed to the limits of destruction and pollution, and protecting society is now of utmost urgency. The ultimate value of this positive and constructive [attitude] lies in protecting society. That is to say, the New Citizen’s Movement is a social gexin yundong, a movement of social renewal and reform led by citizens themselves. While its significance is of a revolutionary nature, it is not a traditional revolution – even less is it a Leninist-style revolution in which “the core question of revolution is the question of regime.” The goal is not political power, but rather a fuller public life [for China’s citizens], fostering a citizen mentality, promoting citizen cooperation as a means of training and fostering citizenship. On the basis of this goal, we encourage more of our brothers and sisters to shake off fear, to join our ranks – beginning with ourselves, beginning now, and beginning with the exercise of citizenship in whatever space is available to us. In this way, drop-by-drop, we can push change, creating a better social environment for ourselves and for our children and grandchildren. We call especially on the authorities to desist in their suppression of the New Citizen’s Movement, because you live not only in the temples of power but also in the midst of society. Protecting our society equally concerns your interests and those of your children and grandchildren.
6. We believe we stand on the right side of history. But we also understand that our own reason has its limitations, that we cannot claim a monopoly on the truth. We believe social progress must be the product of many forces coming together, and so we respect all efforts to promote peaceful change, wherever they arise – regardless of whether they emerge from within the system, or outside of it. At the same time, we understand that we cannot be rigid in our beliefs, that we must always ask whether we have gone too far and lost sight of original intentions, or whether our goals and methods are at odds. This is why we invite the scrutiny of society, understanding that criticism is the best form of counsel. But we will never yield in the face of despotic power. Despotic power, in fact, will only steel our determination. Persecution and suffering will only galvanize our fighting spirit. We are not prophets. We are not heroes. We are not sages. We are ordinary human beings, flawed like the rest, but more than that we are citizens awakened. The decisive power of peaceful change lies with the millions of citizens who have awakened. We are content to be individuals among them, to be a part of the New Citizen Movement, to stand with Xu Zhiyong. There is no amount of intimidation or bribery that can divide us.
In the midst of Xu Zhiyong’s difficulties, this is our statement. For Xu Zhiyong, for all of our brothers and sisters, and for ourselves.
SIGNED by the following Chinese citizens:
Wang Gongquan (王功权) — Beijing, investor
Xiao Shu (笑蜀) — real name, Chen Min, Guangzhou, media professional
我们对于许志永事件的声明
我们，新公民运动的参与者，在新公民运动发起人许志永博士被有关当局刑拘之际，必须站出来声明我们的立场，义不容辞。
第一， 首先必须抗议有关当局。此次拘押之前，许志永博士已经被软禁达三个月之久，而未经任何司法程序。这是非法限制人身自由的典型案例，我们忍无可忍但仍保持了最大克制。现在，我们再不能忍受，因为我们的克制并没能换来有关当局的克制，回头反思，恰恰纵容了有关当局滥用权力。为了捍卫许志永博士的人权与公民权，为了不再纵容有关当局在错误的道路愈走愈远，我们必须对有关当局破坏法制尤其侵犯人权与公民权的错误行为公开说不。否则我们就没有尽到我们对于许志永博士守望相助的责任以及我们作为公民监督制约公权力的义务，我们就对不起自己的良心。
第二， 我们认为有关当局非法软禁乃至刑拘许志永博士是错误的，但是作为公民，我们充分尊重法律，愿意在法制的轨道上解决问题。也提请有关当局充分尊重自己制定的法律，而不是玩弄法律。为此，我们希望许志永案件得到每个细节上都完全符合现代法治标准的公平的、公开的、独立的审理，而不受政治干预以及任何潜规则的支配。许志永博士的法定权利必须得到充分保障，律师的辩护权必须得到充分保障，公众的知情权尤其媒体的自由报道权必须得到充分保障。我们呼吁公众在此环节最大力度地关注和监督有关当局，呼吁中外媒体基于新闻专业主义的立场负责任地报道一切。关注就是力量，围观改变命运。
第三， 许志永博士是新公民运动的发起人，但新公民运动的特点之一是自由的，平等的，作为发起人的许志永博士也只是新公民运动的一个平等的参与者。新公民运动不会因为许志永博士遭受厄运而丧失动力，我们会在宪法和法律的范围内，尽我们作为普通公民的微薄的力量，继续推进新公民运动。
第四， 我们理解的新公民运动，其历史使命不外两点，其一是政治的，即推动整个国家通过和平之途朝向宪政转型；其二是社会的，即推动整个社会从所谓“人民社会”即实质上的臣民社会，朝向公民社会的现代转型。所谓宪政，其要旨无非保障人权和约束公权，为此，我们已经推动了呼吁全国人大批准《人权与公民权利国际公约》之公民联署，以及敦促官员财产公示之公民联署；而在社会层面，我们则推动了以争取随迁子女就地高考为内容之教育平权运动。我们之继续推动新公民运动，仍基于这两点。我们知道路阻且长，但我们不会背弃自己的信念，放弃自己的努力。
第五， 我们坚信，这样的新公民运动不是敌意，而是善意；不是破坏，而是建设。而这样的善意和建设，正是当下中国最需要的。当下中国被破坏被污染的不只是自然环境，社会人文环境之破坏和污染更逼近极限，保卫社会更刻不容缓。这样的善意和建设，终极价值即在于保卫社会。也就是说，新公民运动是一场民间主导的社会革新运动，具有革命性意义但不是传统的革命，尤其不是“革命的根本问题是政权问题”之列宁式革命；不以政权为目的，而以健全公共生活、培育公民气质、促进公民合作为内容之持久的公民训练。基于这一立场，我们呼吁更多同胞告别恐惧，加入我们的行列，从我做起，从现在做起，从所有可能的空间来扩大公民训练，以点滴之善推动改变，为我们自己也为子孙后代，营造一个宜于人居的社会人文环境。我们尤其呼吁有关当局停止对新公民运动的打压，因为你们不仅身居庙堂，你们也在社会之中，保卫社会也与你们自己和你们的子孙后代的福祉攸关。
第六， 我们相信我们站在历史正确的一边，但我们更清楚自己理性上的有限，并不认为自己垄断了真理。我们相信社会进步是合力作用的结果，所以我们尊重推动和平转型的所有努力而无论其来自哪个方向——无论来自体制内还是体制外。我们同时更愿意时刻检讨自己，随时准备纠正自己的错误，决不固执己见、偏于一端，随时警惕自己是否走得太远而忘了初衷，是否目的与手段相悖。为此我们欢迎社会监督，我们承认批评就是最好的提醒。但是我们决不屈服于强权。恰恰相反，强权的压迫只会使我们更坚韧，迫害和磨难只会更激励我们的斗志。我们不是先知，不是英雄，不是圣贤，我们是有毛病甚至是有严重缺点的常人，但我们更是觉醒了公民。千千万万觉醒了的公民才是和平转型的决定性力量，我们愿做其中的一分子，愿做新公民运动的一分子，愿跟许志永博士站到一起。任何威胁利诱，都不能把我们分离。
在许志永博士危难之际，我们谨此声明如上。为许志永博士，为所有亲爱的同胞，更为我们自己。
中国公民：王功权（北京，投资人）
笑 蜀（真实姓名陈敏，广州，媒体人）