This English version may have been machine-generated from the Chinese original and may not convey the original meaning accurately.
At the commemorative assembly held on August 17 to mark the centenary of Jiang Zemin’s birth, the point most worthy of attention was not the ceremony itself, but that Xi Jinping once again described June 4 as “the serious political turmoil at the turn of spring and summer 1989” and affirmed that Jiang Zemin had “firmly supported and implemented the correct decisions of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China” at the time. This means that, at least judging from the official public statements, the established political characterization of June 4 has not changed, and that this history remains placed within a narrative of power in which it cannot be discussed or questioned.
The problem is that how June 4 should be evaluated should not be unilaterally decided by a party organization that has no public mandate and does not accept independent oversight. News reports show that during June 4, Jiang Zemin handled the World Economic Herald incident, after which the newspaper was suspended for rectification; Jiang subsequently entered the highest echelons of power. Regardless of how one evaluates an individual’s political career, historical facts require open archives, a free media, independent research, and deliberation in which the public can participate—not the repeated confirmation of a single authorized answer through commemorative assemblies.
On the one hand, the authorities commemorate such political legacies as reform and opening up and the return of Hong Kong and Macao; on the other, they reiterate their hard-line characterization of June 4, require Party members to uphold the “Two Safeguards,” and call on them to carry forward the “fighting spirit.” This shows that commemorative activities are not merely acts of remembrance, but also tools for mobilizing present-day politics. The scholars’ analysis in the material—that Jiang Zemin’s image is being used to seek historical continuity and legitimacy to govern—still warrants further observation, but it reveals a key issue: when a regime lacks a mandate from free elections, it becomes more dependent on filtering history, controlling public opinion, and repackaging the symbols of its predecessors to demonstrate its own legitimacy.
The material clearly states that the reason Hu Jintao did not attend the assembly still cannot be determined solely from publicly available information; both age and health factors may have played a role. For precisely this reason, society needs transparent information and free reporting even more, rather than relying on speculation in a closed environment. A mature society should not treat whether a leader attends as a political code, much less allow major historical events to be passively accepted only through the official narrative.
The reason the June 4 issue has long been unable to receive open, independent discussion centered on the dignity of the victims does not lie in any particular commemorative ceremony, but in the lack of checks on power under one-party rule: there are no genuinely competitive democratic elections, no independent judiciary, no freedom of the press or expression, and no system capable of holding the state accountable for violence. Only constitutional democracy, the separation of powers, judicial independence, and the effective protection of fundamental human rights can ensure that historical truth no longer submits to power, and that citizens possess the right to ask questions, commemorate, and refuse to forget. The memory of June 4 belongs first and foremost to the conscience and dignity of every individual, not to any political party’s exclusive right to interpret it.
News background: The original report on which this commentary is based can be found at Radio Free Asia Mandarin.