转帖：The Chartist’s Plight: Six Questions for Sha Yexin

The Chartist's Plight: Six Questions for Sha Yexin （附中文说明书）

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/05/hbc-90004993

By Scott Horton

"The Chinese people, who have endured human rights disasters and uncountable struggles across these same years, now include many who see clearly that freedom, equality, and human rights are universal values of humankind and that democracy and constitutional government are the fundamental framework for protecting these values." These soft but firm words introduce Charter '08, a manifesto issued by two thousand leading Chinese citizens, which boldly calls for a series of decisive changes, including the end of one-party rule. One of China's greatest living playwrights, Sha Yexin, is a signatory. Sha's work has sometimes been controversial in the past– some of his pieces gained official favor, while others were criticized and suppressed. Since the publication of Charter '08, however, Sha is clearly viewed as a dissident, and his latest book, Jiang Qing and Her Husbands, could only be published in Hong Kong. I put six questions to Sha Yexin about his life as a chartist.

1. What considerations led you to sign Charter '08?

Like all other signatories of the charter, I endorsed this document out of a thirst for democracy and a hunger for freedom, a desire to defend human rights and an expectation of constitutionalism. The political appeal of Charter '08 is very mild and rational. It was a a discrete, cooperative, constructive, and operational document and was worked out only after fully taking into account China's present conditions, the possibility of political transformation at a modest social cost, and the need to avoid social disasters caused by large-scale turmoil. I think it was an expression of goodwill on the part of a group of honest elites. However, far from being a servile entreaty, it represents a serious appeal made with a strong sense of justice and a temperate wording. Our objective is not to overthrow the Communist Party, but to push it to go forward. Our intention is not to replace it, but to urge it to reform. What we want is a long period of peace and stability for China, and the happiness and well-being of the Chinese people. Our intention and sincerity are clear to all and can be witnessed by Heaven and on earth.

2. While many of the signatories of Charter '08 have faced strong repression—the fate of Liu Xiaobo, for instance, was recently highlighted in a feature story in the New York Times—you seem to be treated by the authorities with much greater deference. Why do you think this is the case?

As a matter of fact, the moment I signed the charter, I anticipated being arrested. I signed the document with a sense of responsibility. I had to have the courage to bear all consequences, including possible arrest, the imposition of a sentence, imprisonment or reform through labor. Speaking out without accepting this risk would reflect a slick character, perhaps crafty and shrewd, but not responsible. This is not my way of acting as a man and a writer. People who want to speak out but refuse to take risks are bound to bend their knees and surrender when faced with a real danger. They might even become turncoats by betraying comrades and friends. I have only contempt for them. Liu Xiaobo was the principal sponsor of Charter '08, and he has paid a heavy cost. At midnight on December 8, 2008, he was detained by the police and put in custody at an unknown place. On December 12, the fifth day after his arrest, forty-one signatories of the charter, with me heading the list, issued a prompt, firm statement, "We and Liu Xiaobo Are Inseparable." It appealed to the authorities for the release of Liu at once and the restoration of his freedom. In the statement, we declared: "Sharing the same thought and ideal, we have an inseparable relationship with Mr. Liu Xiaobo. Charter '08 is like our soul, and every one of us is part of its flesh. Together we constitute an integral whole. If Mr. Liu Xiaobo is harmed because he is a signatory of the Charter, it also means every one of us is harmed. If Mr. Liu Xiaobo cannot gain his freedom, it means every one of us is imprisoned." It is regrettable that six months have passed since he was detained, yet he still remains in custody.

My present circumstances do not differ much from those of the overwhelming majority of the signatories. Shortly after the publication of Charter '08, I gradually became aware that appointments were made for a talk or questioning by the security department with the following other signatories: Yang Hai and Zhao Changchun of Xi'an, Fan Yanqiong of Fujian, Li Junzhuo of Changsha, and others. On December 14, I wrote the following passage in my diary:

I am well prepared and will not be startled by a knock on my door at midnight. A knock at the door during the day is also welcome. I even expect the arrival soon of someone from the security department. I will receive all visitors as guests, with hospitality. I will remain calm and composed, showing neither haughtiness nor servility.

The reason I expected the early arrival of someone from the police was that I am inseparable from all signatories of the charter. We should stick together when in trouble. While others except me were either summoned or invited for a talk, it seemed that I was enjoying exemption from danger owing to some sort of special status. This would be highly unfair. I don't want to be a special person whose safety seems always guaranteed.

After four days, on December 18, I again wrote in my diary:

What I had expected finally happened. But the person I received was not from the police or security department, but Mr. SL, who is a leader of my work unit. At 4:30 p.m., he came to visit. No cordial greetings were exchanged. As soon as he sat down, I said, "Let's get to business." Then I gave him a full account of how I came to sign the charter.

My position was clear-cut. I said I was in favor of the contents of the charter, seeing it as a fairly good solution to the problems facing China. The charter was intended not only for the good of China, but also for the good of the Chinese Communist Party. The charter conforms to the historical trend and the universal values of the world. It points to the only road to social progress. In reconfirming my position to him, I said that history will judge it fairly.

Secondly, I told Mr. SL to his face of my firm opposition to the illegal detention of Mr. Liu Xiaobo and my demand for his prompt release. I hoped that the authorities would not do such stupid things as to go against tidal waves, or to pick up a rock to crush their own feet.

Mr. SL only listened. He was mainly concerned about how I had come to sign the charter—signing it on the Internet or through other channels. This was also the main question put to all signatories of the charter.

The whole atmosphere was good, just like chatting between old friends, and unlike interrogation during a trial or summoning. Otherwise I would have treated him differently, instead of receiving him as a guest.

I don't think that the authorities treated me differently. When Mr. SL came to visit, he was actually representing the authorities. It was true that they treated me with some deference, for which I am grateful. It may be due to my relative openness, transparency, rational manner, and goodwill. I am no conspirator. Nor do I try to establish ties with other people for some hidden purpose. They respect me in the same way I respect them. This is reciprocal.

So far, my personal freedom is not threatened. But my new book, Jiang Qing and Her Husbands—A Selection of Sha Yexin's Banned Works, which was published in Hong Kong, is banned by the Party's Propaganda Department. It obviously has something to do with my signing the charter. This is a punishment meted out to me. Without it, they would have been a bit too nice and deferential to me.

3. On the other hand, back during the student movement in 1989, your play The Fortunate Meeting with Mr. Cai was suspended by the authorities. How did you react to that decision? Has anything like it occurred since?

I need to make a correction in your question. The Fortunate Meeting with Mr. Cai was not suspended in 1989 but in 2005. On January 17 of that year, [former Chinese Communist Party General Secretary] Zhao Ziyang passed away. That year also marked the 10th anniversary of the founding of the Shanghai Drama Art Center. To commemorate this event, a decision was made to stage my play The Fortunate Meeting with Mr. Cai. During a rehearsal specially arranged for the censors, because there was a scene in the play describing a student demonstration during the May Fourth Movement of 1919, the authorities worried that it would trigger a protest demonstration in connection with the death of Zhao Ziyang, and decided to suspend the play. Only people with extraordinary nerves could have been so sensitive as to make such an association.

Since the CCP came to power in 1949, they have imposed bans on so many books, newspapers, journals, films, and plays, as well as prohibiting the so-called "dimly-lit dancing parties," "decadent music," and what not. Such bans and prohibitions were not only introduced in the spheres of speech and ideology, but also expanded to include prohibitions on certain lifestyles, on wearing jeans or frog sunglasses. A wide range of reasons were given for taking such actions, some of which were ludicrous, beyond the imagination of a normal person. The panic and nervousness of the authorities may fit in well with the well-known Chinese idiom: "Every bush and tree looks like an enemy soldier." They may even "mistake the reflection of a bow in a wine cup for a snake." Hypersensitivity and sole reliance on instincts make them suspicious of everything. With groundless fears and endless worries, they go in for a wide spectrum of "preventive measures," about which no one can reason with them. If a book entitled History of the Bans and Prohibitions in China were published, it would amaze readers by giving them a peep into this wonderland of absurdities.

It is hard for me to say whether they have banned my plays since 2005. The fact is that none of my plays have been staged in recent years. But they have imposed a ban on importing my new book Jiang Qing and Her Husbands—A Selection of Sha Yexin's Banned Works, which was published in Hong Kong. Not only is its distribution prohibited but personal copies of the book carried by incoming travelers are even confiscated once they are discovered. The Chinese-language weekly Yazhou zhoukan carried a report on the prohibition.

Because I live in a country where rule by law does not exist, it is impossible for me to do anything on such matters. I cannot reason with them, fight the injustices, or file a legal complaint in defense of my rights. I can only respond to such things with a wry smile or a long sigh. It is fortunate that I am open-minded by nature. Undisturbed by favor or humiliation, I will keep a cool head and concentrate on my work as a writer. No banning can ever stop me from writing. These are the conditions of free writers who live under a totalitarian system.

4. During your career, Shanghai has developed dramatically as a major global commercial center. Its architecture attracts attention around the world. It clearly has emerged as one of the great world urban centers. Do you think it's fair to say that Shanghai has developed in a comparable way as an intellectual center? If not, what factors have retarded the development of Shanghai as a center for the arts and culture and vigorous intellectual discourse?

My answer to your question is "No." Many people have asked me this question. Not long ago, I answered a similar question put to me by a correspondent from Asahi Shimbun. I think my observations are based on the differences in regional culture between Shanghai and other cities. Shanghai is a commercial city. People here tend to think in terms of profit that can be reaped from invested capital. Meticulous calculation and strict budgeting are emphasized so that input and output can be carefully weighed. This has an impact on Shanghai's men of letters as well as their cultural values. The Shanghai literati are only willing to participate in ventures that do not require them to put in their own capital. They will never strike a deal that does not bring them profit. In the presence of men of letters, they may denounce corrupt government officials. In front of government officials, they may condemn certain mean persons in the literary circles. They seldom denounce officials in the presence of other officials, or chastise men of letters in front of the literati. By behaving like this, they can display their sense of justice while evading any risks. If you ask them to write or speak the truth, to express their true feelings or offer honest opinions, you must guarantee that their interests and safety are ensured. Otherwise they would keep aloof and remain silent.

Moreover, the environment for freedom of speech in Shanghai was seriously damaged by the successive demise of leading cultural figures of this region, who had been brought up under the influence of the May Fourth Movement of 1919 and imbued with a democratic spirit through education and training. These include the composer He Luding, the dramatist Huang Zuolin, the writer Ba Jin, and the journalist Lin Fang. Last year, Wang Yuanhua and Jia Zhifang also passed away. They were all men of letters with a free spirit and an independent personality and had served as standard-bearers in Shanghai's cultural circles. Although they manifested their independence in different ways, and their boldness in speech varied, they all basically adhered to the spirit of humanism. On the other hand, the present-day men of letters who are in their prime and enjoy a great measure of popularity all "grew up under the red flag" and were indoctrinated by the Party. Only a few decades ago, they regarded traditional Chinese culture as "the four olds—old ideas, old culture, old customs, and old habits"—and saw Western progressive culture as "fierce floods and savage beasts." To use a current Chinese expression, they were all reared by wolves.

With such a specific regional culture, how could Shanghai become a center for the arts or culture or a center of vigorous intellectual discourse?

5. At the recent Beijing meeting on Chinese drama and literature, you said that playwrights should never forget the role of literature and the aim of writing, and that they should never write for power. Could you elaborate on that?

Why shouldn't one write for power? Here are my reasons:

First, power corrupts. The British historian Lord Acton said: "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." This famous quotation has now become political common sense. Its correctness has been borne out by the intensifying corruption in China, where power is exercised without oversight or restraint. When corruption and power exist in co-prosperity, how can people fight corruption? In present-day China, anti-corruption is kept at a certain level to ensure that people will not revolt while power will not get out of control. In some districts, corrupt elements have become leaders of the anti-corruption effort. Undiscovered corrupt officials are fighting those already exposed.

Second, power makes people stupid. By using mathematical theories, the American scholar Jonathan Bendor proves the great value of independent thinking and the limitations of decision makers. When leaders are too busily occupied with myriad state affairs, institutional methods can be used to ease their cognitive constraints, by seeking wise solutions from among the people and encouraging independent thinking in government officials. But in a totalitarian country, such institutional methods do not and cannot exist.

Most power-holders in such countries are fond of dictatorship. Each of them puts forward his "ideas" and "theories" when it is his turn to rule the country, hoping to see his thought adopted as the "guideline" to unify the thinking of the whole nation. Acting in this way, they deprive themselves of the kind of wisdom and talent that are needed to solve the thorny problems facing the country. As a bunch of dumbbells, they can not help becoming an object of ridicule among the people.

Third, power brings flip-flops and hence suffering to the people. Since power has reduced the wisdom and intelligence of the power-holders and their think tanks, setbacks caused by repeated policy changes including the adoption of reactionary measures are bound to occur. Frequent ideological reversals and repeated changes in ideas and policy bring about great social instability. It becomes very difficult to attain a truly harmonious society and avoid more flip-flops in the future.

Fourth, power produces cruelty. Those who hold power can be overwhelmed by the glare of the spotlight that accompanies power. They may experience a peak period in which they feel accomplishment, happiness, or pleasure. But according to Abraham Maslow, the American psychologist, this peak period does not last long. The powerful had problems coping with the end of this period. Once they reject oversight, checks and balances that come from outside, they immediately become completely irrational and inhuman. If someone wants to share power with them or seeks to replace them with new power-holders, they become mad and cruel, and have no scruples in resort to guns, cannons, and tanks, producing huge social disasters.

If you are a writer who writes for power, objectively you are working, directly or indirectly, for corruption and stupidity, for more suffering and cruelty for the people. You may have some excuses if you are forced to write for power. If you write for power out of your own will, how can you evade your responsibility as an accomplice?

As may be easily understood, what I am speaking about is power in a totalitarian state. It is power without oversight and constraints, as compared with power born from democratic elections. Refusing to write for power also means refusing to write according to the will of those in power, or to promote their ideology in one's writings.

One may choose to write for any other purpose: to write for art, for life, for oneself or others. But he or she must not write for power.

6. You have taken to presenting your thoughts through the medium of blog posting, a nontraditional medium for an author. What inspired you to blog, and what audience do you hope to reach through blogging that is different from the audience you reach as a playwright?

Blog posting represents a trend. It is a brand-new type of expression and writing; the operation is simple and quick. It is easy to make corrections and to get a clean copy. Delivery is very speedy, and you can insert illustrations in the text. Blogs can also convey your voice and image through audio and video files.

More importantly, there is more space for the expression of ideas, and less stringent oversight and censorship. In the beginning, many writers who had used a pen, a Chinese writing brush, or a typewriter as writing tools were not accustomed to the use of computer, let alone blog posting. However, I think things have drastically changed in recent years.

I feel lucky because, more than ten years ago, I became aware of the advantages of a computer and started to replace my pen with it.

The audience of my blogs consists of different groups. But the majority of them are people who have an interest in me and my plays, or who are concerned with China's destiny and its future. I am very grateful to them for the tremendous support, kindness and love they have given me.

The interview was translated from Chinese.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/05/hbc-90004993

沙叶新：谈《零八宪章》与刘晓波
--答美国150多年的老牌杂志《HARPER'S》问

是为了国家好人民好

问：您参加签署《零八宪章》是出於什么考虑？

沙答：《零 八宪章》的政治诉求，是非常温和，是非常理性的，是充分考虑了中国目前的现状和政治变革的可能，以及考虑变革的社会成本不至於过大，以避免大规模的动乱所 引发的社会灾难，所以才有此慎重的、合作的、具有建设性和操作性的文本。我认为这是一群非常善良的社会精英的一种极为善意的表达.但它又绝不是卑躬屈膝的 乞求，而是义正辞温的呼唤。我本人签署该《宪章》，和所有的联署者一样，是出於对民主的渴求，对自由的向往，对人权的捍卫，对宪政的企望。目的不是推翻共 产党，而是推动共产党；不是取共产党而代之，而是促共产党之革新；是为了中国的长治久安，是为了人民的幸福安康。此心此意，天地可鉴！

早已做好被捕的准备

问：签署《零八宪章》的许多人，都面对强烈的压制。例如，最近《纽约时报》在一篇特稿中，曾对刘晓波的命运显着地加以报道。而您似乎得到当局不同的对待，他们好像比较尊重您。其中的原因您认为是什么？

沙答：其 实，我在签署《零八宪章》那一刻，就早已做好被捕的准备。既然我签署这个《宪章》是个负责的行为，我就要勇於承担由此所产生的一切后果，包括逮捕、判刑、 监禁、劳改。既要敢於说话，又不承担风险，这是世故，这是滑头.这不是我一向为人、为文的态度。凡是又要说话又要保险的人，一旦风险袭来，势必屈膝投降， 甚至出卖盟友，沦为叛徒，这是我所不屑的。

刘晓波作为《零八宪章》的主要负责人，为此付出了沉重的代价，○八年十二月八日深夜他被警方拘 押，关在密室。十二月十二日，在拘押刘晓波的第五天，我们《零八宪章》签署者中的四十一人，以我领衔，便及时地、坚定地发表了题为《我们和刘晓波不可分 割》的呼吁书，呼吁当局尽快释放刘晓波，还其自由。我们写道："因为分享着共同的思想和理想，我们与刘晓波先生有着不可分割的关系.《宪章》如同我们的灵 魂；我们每一个人都是《宪章》的肌体，我们互相之间是一个整体.如果刘晓波先生因为签署《宪章》而遭受伤害，那么也是对我们每一个人的伤害。如果刘晓波先 生不能自由，那么我们每一个人也同被囚禁。"遗憾的是刘晓波先生迄今拘押已近半年，尚未解禁。

至於我的处境，与绝大部分签署者并无不同，《零八宪章》公�之后不久，我已逐渐得知除了刘晓波被囚禁之外，西安的杨海、赵长春、福建的范燕琼、长沙李军卓等人都因签署《零八宪章》而陆续被当地的公安或保安约谈问话，我在○八年十二月十四号的日记中写道：

"我已做好准备，不但半夜敲门心不惊，白天敲门也欢迎，我甚至期盼着国保人员的尽早到来，我会对他们抱着来者都是客的好客态度，并从容镇定，不亢不卑。"

我之所以期盼着国保人员尽早到来，是因为我认为我和所有《宪章》的签署者"不可分割"，应该"有难同当"；国保传唤了别人，不传唤我，好像我身份特殊，有避祸的特权，这非常不公平。我不愿意做一个特殊的平安人，所以我期望国保人员尽早到来。

单位领导出面等同"传讯"

四天之后，我在十八日的日记中追记道：

"昨天等待的事情终於等到了，但等到的不是国安和公安，而是SL（我单位的负责人）。四时半左右，SL来，没任何寒暄，甫一坐下，我便说：『我们谈正事。』於是我便把我在《零八宪章》上签名的前后经过一股脑儿都说了。

"我的态度很明确，我说我赞同《零八宪章》的内容，这是解决当前中国问题的较好方案。这不但是为了中国好，也是为了中共好。《宪章》是符合历史潮流的，是符合普世价值的，是社会进步的必由之路。我对SL毫不讳言地说明我的坚决态度，而且表明历史将对此做出公正的结论。

"第二，我对SL说，我坚决反对对刘晓波的非法拘捕，要求尽快释放，希望当局不要再做逆潮流而动的蠢事。六十年来，因为思想言论抓了成千上万的人，哪一个抓对了？现在怎么还要抓人！

"SL只是听，关注的是我怎么签名的，是在网上签名还是用其他方式。这也是《宪章》所有签署者被问到的主要问题."

我并不认为我"似乎得到当局不同的对待"；我单位领导出面，也是代表当局对我的传讯。但他们确实"比较尊重"我，我很感激。其中原因，我估计可能是我比较公开、透明、理性、善意；既无阴谋活动，更无组织串联；况且他们尊重我，我也尊重他们，这是相互的。

目前我的个人自由，并未受到威胁，但我在香港出版的新书《江青和她的丈夫们──沙叶新禁品选》被中宣部查禁，这显然与我签署了《零八宪章》不无关系，这是对我的惩罚，否则就对我太客气，太"尊重"了，反而使我"受宠若惊"。

草木皆兵，杯弓蛇影，怀疑一切

问：另一方面，在一九八九年的学运期间，停演您了的剧本《幸遇先生蔡》。你当时对此作何反应？此后是否发生过类似事件？

沙答：需 要更正的是《幸遇先生蔡》不是在一九八九年停演的，而是在二○○五年。这一年的一月十七日赵紫阳去世，这一年也是上海话剧艺术中心成立十周年。该艺术中心 为了庆祝十年大庆，决定排演我的《幸遇先生蔡》，因为剧中有表现"五四"运动时学生示威的情节，当局在审查该剧时，担心观众看了此剧，可能会因赵紫阳的去 世而引发游行抗议，所以决定停演。只有神经超常的人才会有如此敏感的联想！

一九四九年中共执政以来，查禁书籍报刊、查禁影视戏剧，查禁 "黑灯舞会"，查禁"靡靡之音"，进而查禁言论，查禁思想，甚至查禁"牛仔裤"，查禁"蛤蟆镜"，查禁人们的生活方式，其理由千奇百怪，匪夷所思。越到后 来，越是草木皆兵，杯弓蛇影。他们神经极度过敏，怀疑一切，只凭感觉；他们的查禁，只是毫无根据的担心，全是毫无理由的预防，他们已经到了无理可说的地 步。如果写一部《中国禁史》，看看那些五花八门、荒唐怪诞的"理由"足以让人目瞪口呆！

此后，就没禁演过我的戏，但这很难说，因为我的戏久没上演，无从禁演。但今年发生了禁我新书之事，禁止我在香港出版的《江青和她的丈夫们──沙叶新禁品选》进入内地，连非销售的正常携带也不允许，如有发现，立即查没，香港的《亚洲周刊》对此有所报道。

对 这类事情，我无法有所"反应"，这是因为我生活在一个法制不健全的国度，又是一个书生，你无法说理，无法抗争，无法诉之法律，无法维护权利；你只能苦笑， 只能叹息。好在我生性豁达，宠辱不惊，只问耕耘，不畏查禁，屡禁屡写，绝不停笔！这是在极权制度之下所有自由作家极为无奈的生存状态.

上海难以成为艺术文化中心

问： 在从事您的事业的过程中，上海作为重要的全球商业中心有了戏剧性的发展。它的建筑引世人注目，它已经明显地成为世界伟大中心城市之一。说它作为一个知识、 文化中心也有相应的发展，您认为是否公正？如果答案是否定的，是什么因素妨碍它成为艺术文化中心，成为一个充满活力的思想和精神交流的中心？

沙答：我 的答案是否定的。很多人都问过我这个问题.我说这是因为上海的地域文化与其它地方不同，它是一个商业城市，那就要讲本求利，就要精打细算，就要考虑投入与 产出，因此它也影响了这个地区的文化人和文化品位。上海的文化人他们只愿意做无本的生意，但绝不做无利的买卖.他们也许会在文人面前义正词严地痛斥政府贪 官，也许会在官员面前慷慨激昂地怒骂文坛小丑；但他们很少会在官员面前骂官员，会在文人面前骂文人，这样他们既可显现"正义"，又无风险.如果要让上海文 人写真实、说真话，抒真情，吐真言，也就必须要保证他们的利益和安全，否则就退避三舍，缄口不语.

此外，直接受过"五四"运动熏陶以及民 主思想训练的着名文化人逐渐逝去，这也弱化了上海的言论环境，比如音乐界的贺绿汀先生，戏剧界的黄佐临先生，文学界的巴金先生，新闻界的林放先生等等都相 继去世。去年王元化先生和贾植芳先生又离开了我们。他们都是有自由精神和独立人格的文化人，他们是上海文化界旗帜性的人物。他们的独立表现不尽相同，他们 的言说力度也不一样，但是他们基本上都能坚守着人文主义精神。而现在那些正当盛年的和正当红的文化人，都是在"红旗下长大"，在党化教育下成长的。曾几何 时，他们都曾把中国传统文化当作"四旧"，把西方进步文化视为猛兽；他们都是吸过狼奶的！在这样特定的地域文化中，上海怎么可能成为艺术文化中心，成为一 个充满活力的思想和精神交流的中心？

不为极权的意识形态写作

问：刚刚在北京结束的中国戏剧文学学会第四次全国代表大会会议上，你发表意见说，剧作家永远都不能忘了文艺的作用和写作的目的，还说戏剧创作者永远不要为了权力而创作。您能进一步阐明您的看法吗？

沙答：为什么不能为权力写作呢？这是因为：

一、 权力使人腐败。英国阿克顿爵士的"绝对的权力使人绝对的腐败"这句话已经成为政治常识，而且已经在当代中国被越演越烈的腐败所证明。在中国权力不受监督， 无法制约.腐败和权力共生共荣，你怎么反？目前中国的反腐只是维持在百姓不至於造反而权力不至於失控的限度之内。有些地区完全是腐败分子在领导反腐，或者 说是潜在的腐败分子在反已经暴露了的腐败分子。

二、权力使人愚蠢。美国学者乔纳森？本道用数学理论证明，在日理万机的国家要找到良好对 策，就应该尽量扩大民智，鼓励官员独立思考。但权力者的本性就爱独裁，总以自己的"思想"为"指导思想"，总爱在不同时期提出各种不同的"主义"、"思 想"、"理论"、"荣耻观"、"代表观"、"发展观"，来统一全国思想。使得权力者和智囊团，无法发挥正常的政治智慧，无法施展聪明才智来应对社会难题， 都变成了可笑的蠢才。

三、权力使人折腾.也正因为权力使得唯我独尊的权力者和唯唯诺诺的智囊团的智商下降，所以在治理国计民生时，不但会反覆无常，还会倒行逆施。这种思想上的反覆无常，认识上的反复变化，带来社会的极大不安定，很难实现他们所要求的真正的和谐，很难避免经常性的折腾.

四、 权力使人残忍。所有的权力者都会被权力聚焦效应放大，而因此获得成就感或幸福感或快感这样的高峰体验。按照马斯洛的理论，这种高峰体验不会持久，更无法忍 受它的消失；当权力者不接受权力之外的监督和制衡时，它就立刻会变得毫无理智，毫无人性，如果你还想共享权力或者更迭权力，它就会变得疯狂，变得残忍，甚 至动枪、动炮、动坦克，造成巨大的社会灾难.

如果你是一个作家，你为权力写作，在客观上你就是直接地或间接地为腐败服务，为愚蠢服务，为折腾服务，为残忍服务。如果你是被迫的，还情有可原；如果你是自觉的，那你怎能逃脱帮凶之责？

我说的权力当然是指极权，是不受监督，不受制约的，是不由民主选举所赋予的极权。

不为权力写作，当然也包括不为权力意志写作，不为权力的意识形态写作。

你可以选择任何写作目的，为艺术、为人生，为自己，为他人，就是不能为权力写作。

"换笔触电"追赶博客潮流

问：您选择了这种对作家来说并非传统媒介的博客来发表您的思想观点.什么东西激发你写博客？通过博客，您想面向的是哪些不同於剧作家受众的群体？

沙答：博 客是潮流，是一种全新的表达和书写方式，操作简捷、稿样清洁，修改方便，传送快速，不但可以"图文并茂"，还能"声情并茂"，实在比传统书写方式有很多难 以企及的优点.很多习惯於笔墨写作或使用打字机写作的传统作家，起先都不习惯电脑写作，更不书写博客，我估计这几年这种状况有很大改变。

幸运的是，我觉悟较早，十多年前就"换笔触电"了。

我博客的受众，有各种群体.但多数还是关心我本人，关心我的戏剧作品，以及关心中国前途和命运的那类人，我非常感谢他们对我极大的支持以及宽厚的爱。

《HARPER'S》的英文提问和我的中文回答都由汪有芬先生互译，非常感谢.

二○○九年五月十日上海善作剧楼