During a recent interview, well-known Chinese pro-democracy activist Zhang Lin expressed his sadness over the recent death of former General Secretary Zhao Ziyang. He remembered Zhao as a sincere man and a unique Chinese leader who truly cared about the people.

Zhang has been involved in pro-democracy activities since 1986, when he established several underground pro-democracy organizations. During the student pro-democracy movement in 1989, he started several student organizations and worker organizations in Anhui, such as the Anhui Branch of Future Society. He was arrested on June 8, 1986, and after his release in 1991, he continued to devote himself to the pro-democracy movement in China. He was arrested again in May 1995. After being released from a forced labor camp in 1998, he went to the United States to take part in overseas pro-democracy activities. At the end of October 1998, he secretly returned to China, but was arrested for the third time by the authorities two days after his arrival. He was then sentenced to three years in a forced labor camp until the end of 2001.

In the interview, Zhang praised Zhao as an upright Communist Party member who was very different from his comrades. Zhang said that many of his friends had hoped that Zhao might regain his freedom one day. “We used to believe that he could survive to see democracy in China. It is a pity that he passed away so early. It is an enormous loss and we were deeply saddened to hear of his death.”

Zhao and former General Secretary Hu Yaobang were both well-respected Chinese leaders, but they both ended up in wretched circumstances. Zhang said he believed that such tragedy was inevitable. “The reactionary and autocratic forces Zhao and Hu faced were too powerful,” he said. “After realizing that the CCP was ridiculous and absurd, they tried their utmost to turn the situation around and lead China towards the path of democracy. They failed, however, due to the fierce opposition from the conservative reactionary forces of the CCP.”

Zhang said that he thought that unlike most CCP members, who he considers to be cruel and extremely selfish materialists, Zhao was a considerate and sincere politician who was truly concerned about others.

Zhang used the example of the starvation suffered by Chinese people during Mao’s rule. Instead of focusing his energy on promotion of Marxism and Leninism, Zhao concentrated on providing farmers with more grain to feed the people in the worst-hit provinces as well as those in adjacent provinces. As a result, there was a popular saying, “If you want to eat grain, you need to go to Zhao Ziyang.” Zhang continued: “Zhao was in tears when he spoke to the pro-democracy students in Tiananmen Square during the June 4th incident. This really showed that Zhao was concerned about others.”

When asked how the Chinese communist regime would react to another pro-democracy movement like the one in 1989, Zhang said, “Chinese society has undergone tremendous changes. Though China still sustains its autocratic political system superficially, the entire society has actually been disintegrated. Each single person, each ethnic group and population in different areas have their own ways of thinking. It would be very difficult for the Chinese regime to launch a crackdown like the one that took place 15 years ago. Currently, soldiers and policemen are very corrupt, and government officials, including leaders of the CCP at various levels, are inclined to change their position with the situation. Therefore, it is hard to say whether a pro-democracy movement or a massive protest similar to the June 4th incident would happen again. But even if it happened, the likelihood of a crackdown similar to the June 4th incident would be very low.”

He gave an example. “Look at the massive protests staged by farmers in Sichuan last year. The authorities gave in to the public and did not consider them ‘counter- revolutionary rioters.’ If this had happened in the past, it would definitely have been regarded as a counter-revolutionary uprising and would have immediately resulted in a massive crackdown. Nowadays, the number of protesters might be more than 70,000, 100,000 or even more. As a result, it would be difficult to launch a massive crackdown. If they did, it would very likely provoke even more violent resistance.