 |
| 吉恩·夏普自1960年以来，已经写了十几本关于非暴力斗争的著作[图片： 如何开始一场革命 ] |
 |
| 《从独裁到民主》的藏文译本，这里可以下载。 |
访问《从独裁到民主》作者吉恩·夏普
原文标题：Q&A: Gene Sharp
来源：http://www.aljazeera.com
原文作者： Roxanne Horesh & Sam Bollier
译者：朝雲
转自：译言网http://article.yeeyan.org/view/99430/298410
 |
| 中文译本，下载见此。 |
他的著作《从独裁到民主/From Dictatorship to Democracy》，是一本教人如何推翻独裁者的指引，先於1993年出版，翻译成24种语言。由缅甸到波斯尼亚，乃至最近在2月，开罗的塔利尔广场(Tahrir Square)，示威者都分发夏普这本94页的小册子，作为推翻暴君的指南。
对於很多专制统治者，夏普的著作是威胁。委内瑞拉总统乌戈·查韦斯(Hugo Chavez)曾经抨击过他的作品。2008年，伊朗政府制作动画影片，形容夏普是美国中情局特务，在白宫与约翰·麦凯恩(John McCain)、乔治·索罗斯(George Soros)密切联系。
根据驻美国驻大马士革大使所述，后遭维基解密公开的电文，叙利亚异见者通过阅读夏普着作来培训非暴力示威者。另一写於2007年的外泄电文披露，缅甸政权视夏普为阴谋“颠覆”国家政府的一份子。
1953年韩战，他因为抗议征兵而下狱。某年他见证某国某广场的起义（原文是“witnessed China's Tianamen Square uprising in 1989”，指的是1989年中国天安门广场的学生运动），1990年代他偷偷潜入缅甸反对派的帐篷。
现在身体虚弱的夏普住在波士顿东面联袂兴建的别墅，这里亦是阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦研究所(Albert Einstein Institution)的总部，一个研究非暴力抗争的非牟利组织。
夏普的中心思想之一，是权力来自对统治的服从——如果服从的根基受破坏，就能推翻暴君。与本台罗克珊·何列斯(Roxanne Horesh)、山姆·博利拿(Sam Bollier)的访谈中，务实的夏普告诉我们，为什麽独裁者在充分组织的非暴力抗争下会不堪一击。
最初是什麽吸引你有志於非暴力运动?
当我还是俄亥俄州立大学(Ohio State University)的本科生，世界完全是一团糟。二次大战对於我们记忆犹新，原子弹还是新事物。欧洲的殖民主义遍布世界——欧洲人认为他们拥有世界其他地方，自行瓜分。
暴力有很大问题，它只有破坏，而没有创造。人民运动需要一些法则。我开始意会这就是非暴力运动，但我所知不多，当时文献远远不够。
你曾切身参与非暴力运动数十年，你怎样看你当初研究带来的演变？
初时我想过为了采取非暴力，你得相信非暴力一如道德或宗教教条，後来我发现不是，首要是良心对自己的心理威胁——世人总不相信自己如想像般好。
但这亦是重大进步，因为人们采纳非暴力抗争前，毋须必先是和平主义者。我理解到这种抗争方式，在若干时代已经持续多个世纪——在世界各地都出现过，一般人都能做到。
为什麽你认为非暴力抗争比暴力抗争更有效?
暴力不完全有效，只要你想想战争会持续多久，每一场战争对各方有多大损失。欧洲的殖民主义得到机会，主因之一就是战争。
反观像甘地等人(非暴力抗争)的例子——他挑战前所未见的大帝国，却终令英国离开印度。还有很多例子，但我们很多时都不察觉他们采用非暴力的抗争方式。
你说过军人比和平的民众更理解你的思想。你能否解释是什麽意思?
起初我感到惊奇。有时我获邀向和平组织演讲，他们总是令我为难，因为我说的是务实的非暴力运动，而他们说的是笃信非暴力为道德原则。
而当军队是我演讲的听众，他们听得懂，因为他们懂谋略.。军人真的理解深入得多。我曾在数个不同国家与军人会面，这是真的，现在还是。我在1973年出版 的书《The Politics of Nonviolent Action/非暴力行动政治学》，在好几个国家都很得到军方刊物相当育定的评论，不是人们意料得到。
你写了很多关於策略与长期计划，对非暴力运动的成功至为重要。在这方面，你怎样看占领华尔街运动?
他们没有具体诉求或清晰目标。举例，不像阿拉巴马州的罢乘巴士运动【1】，多年前他们拒绝坐巴士，只肯走路，搭便车，乘计程车。他们有明确目标：打破巴士的种族隔离。
(占领华尔街的)示威者则无清晰目标，没错他们能够达成一些目标，但如果他们以为，不过留在一个特别的地方就能改变经济系统，他们大概会非常失望。仅仅示威难有成就。
你对占领运动有什麽建议?
我想他们需要学习怎样才能真正改变不喜欢的事物，纯粹坐在或待在一个固定地方，不能改变和改进政经制度。
阿拉伯之春运动在一些国家转趋暴力，你是否认为这些国家趋向暴力，将会伤害推翻专制的努力?
当然。从其他事例可知，例如1905年(俄罗斯的)革命，试图摆脱沙皇的独裁。人民已经成功在望，军队已经倒戈在望。很多士兵拒绝服从命令，向非暴力的民众交枪，就像叙利亚的情况。
非暴力意味增加军队抗命的机会。但当你走向暴力。士兵不会哗变/他们会效忠专制而令专制得到生存的良机，正是1905年革命所发生的。当时(革命)可以很 快成功，但之後布尔什维克故意使非暴力的全国的大罢工转变成武装起义。以致士兵头一回长期顺从命令，给沙皇有力维持高压统治，继续维持专制12年。
你说过非暴力运动的领导很重要。但若果我们看看实例，埃及或者1979年的伊朗，初时都没有一个显然的领袖。非暴力运动能不能没有领袖而成功呢？
有时可以。但在这种情况，人们需要明白水能载舟，亦能覆舟。
若果没有强力领导，有时可以取得长足进步，因为政权无法通过拘捕、暗杀领袖控制局面。
然而长此没有领袖下去，你得面面俱到，清楚自己要怎样做.。如果要宣扬运动需要的讯息，你要有一个清单写明“做什麽,不要做什麽”，大家都明白，运动有更大机会获胜。如果你对於行动没有基础认识，你将一事无成。
自埃及起革命，媒体把你的努力与埃及起义联系起来。你怎样想?
如果我的工作有所影响，我对此很高兴。我从未说过我推动起义，也没有什麽明显的证据，我说我的影响甚微。有其他人从事这方面的工作,，撰写这方面的著作。
人民才是真正投身运动、真正有功的人，不是我。
 |
| 《从独裁到民主》讲述非暴力方法198种。 |
我感到光荣。一些穆斯林早已是发起非暴力运动的勇者。阿布杜拉·拉文·瓦希德(Abdul Rahman Wahid)为我其中一本书写序，当时他领导世界最大的穆斯林组织。回到甘地的时代，在英属印度，位於西北边境的省份，汗·阿布杜拉·贾法尔·汗 (Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan)是一位非常勇敢、非常历练、非常精明的穆斯林领袖，在当地带领非暴力运动。甘地说过在西北边境穆斯林领导的运动胜於印度的印度教徒。
你从人民投身非暴力革命中学到什麽?
啊，只要能够，我无时无刻都想从中学习——因为他们做到人们不时以为不可能的事。
他们证明即使在压迫之下，老百姓依然可以坚持非暴力原则，保持勇气，继续抗争。正如甘地所说：“摆脱恐惧，不要害怕」”。很多时我自问过这样想有点天真。英国有枪有军队。
但尤其是叙利亚人民，还有其他国家，当然包括突尼斯、埃及和所有全力以赴的人——他们都非常勇敢。而勇气就是最值得肯定的贡献。他们是真正坐言起行的人。
你怎样看现在一些伟大的抗争思想家?
我不清楚。有时带领运动的人真的非常重要，但有时他们得不到他们应得的荣耀。他们不及甘地时在生时那麽有名，但这亦非坏事。如果人们认识到他们都有那些思想家的见识，他们一样可以做到，人民力量就势不可挡。
一次运动不一定完功。有时你必须持续抗争两次、三次、四次或五次，就像战事。正如二次大战打了多少年？第一次尝试不能赢得战争，有时人民会输掉第一场战 役。人们得学会自强，(明白)需要什麽才能使自己更强大，需要什麽才能使自己更勇敢，不会在对方开第一枪时逃跑，而是有计划地向前进攻。
现在爱因斯坦研究所从事什麽工作?
我们研究非暴力运动的性质，预备教材，翻译指南——如果有些地方翻译不准确，事情会变得非常糟糕。还为所有继续有志於新一轮运动的人供应订书。
除了工作你还有什麽兴趣?
我在家里和後院种了各式各样的花草，还有一只小狗，过去我一直养大狗—— 是三四隻大丹狗(Great Danes)——它们是巨大、漂亮的生物。狗，宠物，动物，花花草草，和其他同样的东西——我藉此得到放松。
注释：
【1】:1955年，罗莎·帕克斯(Rosa Parks)在巴士上拒绝让坐给白人而被捕，马丁·路德·金因而发起黑人抵制乘坐巴士运动。联邦法院最终裁定巴士的种族隔离规定违宪。
| Q&A: Gene Sharp | |||
Al Jazeera talks with the quiet but influential scholar of non-violent struggle.
Last Modified: 06 Dec 2011 07:52
Gene Sharp, a humble, 83-year-old intellectual, has been credited with promoting non-violent struggle around the world.
Sharp's book From Dictatorship to Democracy,
a how-to guide for toppling dictators first published in 1993, has been
translated into 24 different languages. From Burma to Bosnia, and more
recently this February in Cairo's Tahrir Square, protesters distributed
Sharp's 94-page manual as a guide for overthrowing autocrats.
To many despots, Sharp's works are threatening. The president of
Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, has denounced his books. In 2008, the Iranian
government produced an animated video portraying Sharp as a CIA agent, hobnobbing in the White House with John McCain and George Soros.
According to a cable written by the US embassy in Damascus - and later published by WikiLeaks - Syrian dissidents trained non-violent protesters by reading Sharp's writings. Another leaked cable from 2007 revealed that Burmese authorities thought Sharp was part of an attempt to "bring down" the country's government.
He was jailed for protesting conscription in the Korean War in 1953,
witnessed China's Tianamen Square uprising in 1989, and snuck into a
rebel camp in Myanmar in the 1990s.
Now, a frail Sharp lives in an East Boston townhouse which is also home to his Albert Einstein Institution, a non-profit organisation that studies non-violent resistance.
One of Sharp's main ideas is that power comes from the obedience of the
governed - and that if the sources of this obedience are undermined,
tyrants can be toppled. In a conversation with Al Jazeera's Roxanne
Horesh and Sam Bollier, a pragmatic Sharp tells us why dictators are
vulnerable to well-organised, non-violent resistance.
What first made you interested in non-violent struggle?
When I was an undergraduate at Ohio State University, the world was
just very much of a mess. The Second World War was fresh in our
memories; the atomic bomb was new. There was European colonialism all
over the world - Europeans thought they owned the rest of the world, so
they divided it among themselves.
There were major problems with violence. Violence was only destroying
things, it wasn’t creating things. People needed some means of
struggle. I was beginning to learn that there was such a thing as
non-violent struggle, but I didn’t know much about it. The literature
at that time was very inadequate.
You have been working in the field of non-violent resistance
for decades. How have your views evolved from your original research?
Originally I thought that in order to use non-violence, you had to
believe in non-violence as an ethic or religious principle, and later I
discovered that wasn’t true. And at first that was a psychological
threat - my goodness, they don’t believe like they are supposed to.
But also it was a great advantage, because people didn’t have to be
pacifists before they could use this kind of resistance. And I learned
that this kind of resistance has been going on sometimes for centuries.
Ordinary people could do this - and did this in various parts of the
world.
Why do you think non-violent resistance is more effective than violent resistance?
Violence is not all that effective, if you think how long many wars
last and how every war is lost by one side or the other. Wars are one
of the major factors that made European colonialism possible.
There were cases [of non-violent resistance] where people like Gandhi -
he was challenging the largest empire the world had ever seen, and made
the British get out of India. There are a lot of examples. But we
didn’t know a lot about those types of resistance.
You have said that military people understand you better than peace people do. Can you expand on what you mean?
This was a surprise at first. Sometimes I would get invited to speak to
a pacifist group, and they would always give me a hard time because I
was talking about pragmatic non-violent struggle, and they were talking
about believing in non-violence as an ethical principle.
But when I spoke to a military audience, they understood this, because
they knew strategy and tactics. The military people really took it much
more seriously. That’s been true in several different countries where I
met with military people. And it’s true today: My 1973 book The Politics of Nonviolent Action was reviewed very favourably in military journals in several countries. It’s not what people would expect.
You've written a lot about the importance of strategy and long-term planning for non-violent struggles to succeed. In this regard, what are your thoughts on the Occupy Wall Street movement?
They don’t have any specific demands or a clear objective. It is not
like a bus boycott in Alabama, for example, many years ago - where
people would just walk, or hitchhike, or take taxis instead of using
the busses. They had a clear objective: to break down the segregation
on the buses.
The [Occupy] protesters don’t have a clear objective, something they
can actually achieve. If they think they will change the economic
system by simply staying in a particular location, then they are likely
to be very disappointed. Protest alone accomplishes very little.
What advice would you give to the Occupy movement?
I think they need to study how they can actually change the things they
don’t like, because simply sitting or staying in a certain place will
not change or improve the economic or political system.
The Arab Spring movements in some countries have become violent. Do you think this turn to violence will damage efforts to move away from dictatorial systems in those countries?
Absolutely. We know that from other cases. For example, the 1905
revolution [in Russia] that was trying to get rid of the Tsarist
dictatorship. People there were on the verge of complete success. The
army was on the verge of mutiny. Lots of soldiers had refused to obey
orders to shoot non-violent people, similar to the situation in Syria.
Non-violent means will increase your chances of the soldiers refusing
to obey orders. But if you go over to violence, the soldiers will not
mutiny. They will be loyal to the dictatorship and the dictatorship
will have a good chance to survive, as indeed happened in the 1905
revolution. [The revolution] could have succeeded very quickly at that
time, but then the Bolsheviks deliberately changed the non-violent
general strike to a violent uprising. That meant the soldiers, for the
first time in a long time, did obey orders. And then that gave the Tsar the ability to maintain the repression, and maintain the system for another 12 years.
You've said that leadership is important in non-violent
struggles. But if we look at, for instance, Egypt, or Iran in 1979,
there was not one clear leader early on. Can non-violent struggle be
successful without a leader?
It can, and it has been at times. But in those cases, people need to
understand what makes this succeed, and what makes it fail.
If they have no strong leader, this can be an advantage at times,
because then the regime cannot really control the situation by
arresting or killing off the leadership.
But if you are going to do it without leaders, you have to do that
skillfully, and know what you’re doing. If you spread information about
what is required, and have a list of “do this, and not that”, and
everybody understands that, the struggle can have greater chances of
success. If you don’t have that basic understanding of what you’re
doing, then you’re not going to win anything.
Since the Egyptian revolution, the media has linked the Egyptian uprising to your work. What are your thoughts on this?
I think if my work had an influence, I’m happy for that. I don’t claim
that and I don’t have hard evidence, and I claim very little for
myself. Other people have been doing this kind of work, and doing this
writing.
The people who actually do the struggles are the ones who deserve the credit, not me.
What do you think of the fact that your book From Dictatorship to Democracy is on the Muslim Brotherhood website for years?
I am honoured. Some of the bravest people waging non-violent struggle
have been Muslims. One of my books had an introduction by Abdul Rahman
Wahid, who headed at the time the largest Muslim organisation in the
world. Back in the days of Gandhi, in the northwest frontier province
of British India, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, a very brave, very
sophisticated and very astute Muslim leader of non-violent struggle,
led a movement there. Gandhi said that the leadership of the Muslim
movement in the northwest frontier exceeded that of the Hindus in India.
People are dispelling some of these ridiculous stereotypes about Muslims, and people in some other parts of the world.
Have you learned anything from people involved in non-violent struggle?
Oh, I try to learn whenever I can - because what they have done sometimes people would have thought impossible.
They have proved that it’s possible for ordinary people to maintain
non-violent discipline, maintain their courage, to continue the
struggle, despite the repression. As Gandhi always said, “Cast off
fear. Don’t be afraid”. I thought many times myself, that’s a bit
naïve. The British had the guns and the army.
But the people of Syria especially, and other countries as well,
certainly in Egypt and Tunisia and on down the line - all of them -
they have been very brave. And that bravery is something that deserves
major credit. They’re the ones who actually do the job.
Who do you think some of the great thinkers of resistance are today?
I’m not sure. Sometimes people are really very important in leading
these movements, but they sometimes don’t get the credit they often
deserve. They are not as famous as Gandhi was in his lifetime. But this
is not a bad thing, if people learn that they can do this and the
knowledge that people power is powerful.
One struggle doesn’t always do the job; sometimes you have to have two
or three or four or five struggles in succession. It’s like in a war.
How many years did the Second World War last, for example? Wars are not
won in the first attempt. Sometimes people lost the first battle. They
learned they had to strengthen themselves, [learned] what was required
to become stronger and what was required to become more brave and not
to run away when they first got shot at, but they would charge ahead
skillfully.
What does the Albert Einstein Institution do today?
We do research on the nature of non-violent struggle, prepare
educational material, and guide translations - because if they don’t
translate something accurately, it’s going to mess things up badly -
and fill orders for all the continued interest from the new struggles.
What are your interests outside of your work?
I grow a variety of plants in my house, and in my backyard, and I have
a small dog. I used to have big dogs, Great Danes - three or four of
those - and they are great, wonderful creatures. Dogs and pets, and
animals, and plants and flowers and all those kinds of things - I
unwind my head that way.
|
沒有留言:
張貼留言