引言：从无力感到觉醒的征程

    “历史告诉我们，每个社会都不可避免地面临权力与自由的博弈。当权力无限制地扩张，个人的尊严与权利便会逐渐丧失，社会陷入一种被动的沉寂之中。而当自由被唤醒，权力的滥用便会受到质疑与反抗，从而引发新的社会活力。”——若阿列克西·德·托克维尔（Alexis de Tocqueville，1805～1859，法国历史学家、政治家和政治社会学奠基人）仍在世，他或许会以这样的言辞揭开对当今高度集权社会现状的分析。

    高度集权社会状态可以被描述为一种集体性的“受限的被动性”。尽管许多人逐渐意识到问题的存在，却因外在环境和内在心理的双重压迫，难以付诸有效行动。许多人无奈地陷入一种被困锁的状态：“润不出”——移民受限、社会流动性下降；“想不清”——长期的意识形态灌输和信息控制导致批判性思维弱化；“没勇气”——精致的利己主义与犬儒化心态使人们回避公共责任；“怯抗争”——面对强权时因缺乏法律保护和制度保障而无从抗争。这种状态如何打破？人们该从哪里开始重新塑造社会的力量？

    托克维尔在《民主在美国》和《旧制度与大革命》中探讨了类似的社会现象，并提出了一系列经典理论。以下将从托克维尔的核心思想出发，结合部分社会情境，分析困境根源、探讨解决路径，并尝试寻找一条从个体觉醒到社会变革的可能之路。

第一部分：社会现状的分析——四种状态与民众的被动性困局

1. “润不出”——外在环境的限制与无力感的蔓延

    托克维尔在《民主在美国》中指出：“当国家权力不断扩张、社会通道日益堵塞时，个体的行动自由便被无形的枷锁所束缚。”在高度集权社会中，“润不出”不仅指出国签证和移民受阻，更指一种社会结构的固化和上升渠道的封闭。权力和资源集中在少数精英阶层手中，使得大多数民众在政治和经济上都失去了主动选择的能力。

• 社会流动性受限与命运的锁定： 如同托克维尔所分析的法国旧制度（Ancien Régime）那样，权力的高度集中导致社会阶层的固化和流动性的阻塞。个体无法通过合法、正常的手段改变自身的命运，甚至一代人、两代人都无法逃脱这种“身份束缚”。这造成了普遍的无力感和对未来的失望情绪。
• “被困锁”心理的蔓延： 托克维尔认为，当个人丧失了行动自由后，心灵便会逐渐被恐惧和无助感所侵蚀，最终导致社会陷入普遍的犬儒化与消极状态。那国的许多人选择“内卷”（即将精力消耗在无意义的竞争中）和“躺平”（即放弃追求和抗争），正是这种被困锁心理的直接表现。

2. “想不清”——长期意识形态控制与思想禁锢

    托克维尔指出：“最可怕的暴政并不是让人感到痛苦，而是让人不再感受到痛苦的存在。”当长期的意识形态控制和信息封锁成为常态时，个体的批判性思维能力逐渐被削弱，即便意识到问题的存在，也难以清晰地理解其根源。

• 意识形态的内化与思想的“温柔枷锁”： 托克维尔在《民主在美国》中提到，民主社会中可能出现一种“温柔的专制”（soft despotism），即通过意识形态灌输和教育体系的引导，让人们自愿接受被动服从的状态。这种现象在那国表现为长期的教育和宣传使许多民众不再质疑权威，而是将“服从”视为一种道德责任。
• “双重思想”与认知混乱： 当人们在一个充满矛盾和相互冲突的信息环境中长大，他们会逐渐适应“双重思想”的生存模式：即同时相信相互矛盾的观念而不感到冲突。在这种状态下，人们无法形成系统的批判性思维，也无法看清问题的本质。托克维尔认为，这种认知混乱会使社会陷入一种自我欺骗的漩涡。

3. “没勇气”——精致的利己主义与犬儒化心态

    托克维尔在《旧制度与大革命》中描述了革命前夕法国社会的“精致利己主义”现象：即个体将自我利益最大化，但又避免触及公共责任的底线。他认为，这种利己主义源于一种普遍的社会无力感和对权力的恐惧。

• 利己主义与犬儒主义的合流： 在那个社会，当面对强权时，许多人选择退缩到私人领域，精心打理个人生活，回避公共责任。这种“精致的利己主义”与犬儒主义（对所有道德追求和公共理想的怀疑）相互交织，形成了对社会正义的普遍漠视。托克维尔指出，这种心态不仅是社会无力感的表现，更是对自由精神的放弃。
• 道德勇气的缺失与社会责任感的消解： 托克维尔在描述自由社会的形成时，特别强调“道德勇气”的作用。他认为，只有当个体愿意为了捍卫真理和正义而牺牲个人利益时，自由社会才能真正建立。今天的高度集权社会，许多人缺乏这种道德勇气，因为他们已经习惯了在恐惧中求生存。

4. “怯抗争”——政治报复与法律支持的缺失

    托克维尔在分析法国旧制度时指出：“当法律沦为权力的附庸，个体便丧失了对正义的信任。”在那个社会，个体面对不公时难以诉诸法律，而任何试图挑战权力的行为都可能遭到严厉的政治报复。

• 法律的虚无化与社会正义的沦丧： 法律在高度集权社会中经常被视为维护秩序的工具，而不是公正的捍卫者。当民众无法通过法律手段来维护自身权利时，他们的反抗意志和行动能力便会被极大削弱。
• 政治报复与社会信任的瓦解： 托克维尔认为，任何社会都必须建立在一种“信任契约”之上，即公民相信政府能够公平、公正地执行法律。然而，当这种信任瓦解时，社会将陷入普遍的怀疑和冷漠之中。

第二部分：社会困境的深层原因与托克维尔的理论依据

1. 权力集中与“温柔的专制”

    托克维尔在《民主在美国》中提出了“温柔的专制”概念（Soft Despotism），揭示了现代社会中一种看似无害但实则危险的权力扩张形式。这种“专制”并非通过暴力和恐怖来强制控制，而是以“公共利益”或“社会和谐”的名义，对个体施加一种温柔但无所不在的控制。在托克维尔的描述中，这种权力会以善意的面目出现，通过教育、舆论引导、社会福利和制度安排等手段，将公民的生活逐步纳入国家的全面控制。

• “温柔的专制”在高度集权国家的表现： 在那个国家，尽管政治运动不再像“文艺/革命”时期那样极端，但国家对社会的控制依然严密，只不过表现为更加隐秘、温和和制度化的形式。国家通过教育体系、舆论控制和“社会信用体系”来塑造公民行为，使个体逐渐丧失独立判断力和自我意志。这种权力模式不仅削弱了公民的抵抗意志，还让个体对现状形成某种“被动认同”，即尽管意识到问题的存在，却因恐惧和制度的引导而自觉服从。
• 托克维尔对“温柔的专制”危害的警告： 托克维尔认为，这种“温柔的专制”比传统的暴力专制更具危险性，因为它不会引起剧烈的反抗或暴动，却能通过不断削弱个人的自主性，将整个社会逐渐引入一种“自愿的奴役”状态。这种状态下，社会虽然表面上“和谐稳定”，但实际上已陷入一种深刻的精神枷锁中，失去了应有的活力和道德坚韧。

2. 法治的弱化与“法律的工具化”

    托克维尔在《旧制度与大革命》中提到，法律应该是公民与国家权力之间的“中立裁判者”。然而，当法律沦为权力的附庸时，它就失去了维护正义的力量，变成了权力用来操控社会和打击异见的工具。

• 那个国家的“法律工具化”现象： 当代那国的法律体系在宪法上规定了对公民权利的保障，但在实际操作中却往往受到行政权力和政治需求的干预。法律常常被用作维稳工具，而非保障公民权利的基石。托克维尔警告我们，当法律被政治需要所左右时，个体便失去了对正义的信任，而社会最终会陷入普遍的法治虚无主义之中。
• 权力制衡的缺失导致法律无效化： 在托克维尔看来，只有当立法、司法和行政权力相互制衡时，法律才能有效保护公民免受专断权力的侵犯。然而，在那国，权力结构的高度集中使得法律缺乏独立性，无法真正起到制约权力的作用。相反，法律被用来为权力的扩张和对异见者的打击提供合法外衣。这种情况使得民众在面对权力滥用时感到无助，从而进一步加剧了社会的无力感。

3. 个人主义的极端化与“犬儒主义”

    托克维尔认为，个体的自由与公共精神的结合是民主社会健康运转的基础。当个体只关心自己的私利，而不再关心公共事务时，社会便会陷入一种“原子化”的状态。个体在这种状态下虽然表面上拥有自由，但实际上已经失去了真正的政治和社会参与能力。

• 高度集权社会中的“犬儒主义”与“精致的利己主义”： 今天的高度集权社会中，许多民众选择回避公共事务，专注于自己的个人利益和家庭生活。这种“精致的利己主义”现象表面上是一种对复杂环境的适应，但实际上却是一种对社会责任的逃避。托克维尔认为，当个体的自由缺乏公共精神的约束时，它便会演变为一种消极的、自私的自由，最终导致整个社会的犬儒化。
• “犬儒主义”的危害与“集体行动困境”： 托克维尔认为，犬儒主义会带来一种集体行动的困境，即每个个体都意识到问题的存在，但因为缺乏信任和合作机制，谁也不愿意采取行动。最终，所有人都被困在一种“等待他人行动”的状态中，社会失去了变革的动力。这种犬儒化心态在那国表现为“明哲保身”和“事不关己”的普遍心态，使得即便有少数人试图发起变革，也难以获得社会支持。

4. 公共精神的缺失与“自愿的奴役”

    托克维尔认为，公共精神的缺失是民主社会衰败的根本原因。他在《旧制度与大革命》中指出，当个体只关心私人事务时，国家权力便会趁机扩张，并逐渐将社会引入一种“自愿的奴役”状态。在这种状态下，人们宁愿牺牲自己的政治自由和社会权利，换取眼前的物质利益和安全感。

• 高度集权社会中“自愿的奴役”现象： 当代那国，许多民众在面对国家权力时表现出一种“自愿服从”的状态。为了避免风险，他们宁愿放弃表达和行动的权利，而接受一种“有序而稳定”的社会安排。这种状态并不是由于国家的强制，而是由于个体在长期的压制中形成了“安于现状”的心理模式。
• 托克维尔对“自愿奴役”的分析： 托克维尔指出，这种自愿的奴役状态最可怕之处在于它不会引起社会的强烈反抗，因为每个个体都在其中找到了某种“安全感”。他们宁愿牺牲自由，换取暂时的安宁。这种状态看似稳定，实则脆弱，因为一旦社会的物质基础发生动摇（如经济危机或政治动荡），这种表面的稳定便会迅速瓦解，社会将陷入混乱和失序之中。

第三部分：从困境到突破——托克维尔视角下的路径与策略

1. 从个体觉醒到社会参与：重建“公共精神”

    托克维尔认为，社会变革的第一步是从个体意识的觉醒开始，尤其是对“公共精神”的重建。当公民能够认识到自己不仅是一个私人生活的管理者，也是公共事务的参与者时，自由社会的萌芽才会出现。

• 重建个人的责任意识与道德勇气： 托克维尔指出，民主社会的活力来自个体对公共事务的责任感。要实现这一目标，必须通过教育和文化启蒙，帮助人们认识到自身在社会中的角色。高度集权社会的知识分子、宗教领袖和思想启蒙者需要承担起这一责任，通过思想传播和文化活动来唤醒民众的社会责任感。
• 构建小型社群与社会信任网络： 托克维尔认为，当大型社会结构无法有效运转时，小型社群和地方性自治组织便成为社会活力的源泉。在那国，可以通过建立小型社群（如社区学习小组、宗教团体、文化沙龙）来重建社会信任。这些小型组织虽然规模有限，但却可以为民众提供一个安全的讨论和行动空间，从而逐步形成更大的社会力量。

2. 推动基层民主与社会自治：从“自下而上”开始

    托克维尔在《民主在美国》中赞扬了美国的地方自治体系。他认为，地方自治是自由的最可靠保障，因为它能够让公民直接参与公共事务，感受到自己的力量。

• 扩大地方治理与基层自治： 在那国，可以通过推动基层民主选举和社区自治来扩大民众的参与感。尽管中央集权体制难以在短期内改变，但通过逐步扩大地方政府和民间力量的权力，可以为未来的制度改革奠定基础。
• 加强公共表达与社会监督： 鼓励民众参与地方性事务（如环境保护、社区服务），并通过法律手段逐步扩大民众在地方治理中的发言。托克维尔在《民主在美国》中反复强调，公民参与和公共讨论是防止专制的重要手段。即便在高度集权的社会，民众依然可以从参与地方性事务（如环境保护、社区安全、教育事务等）入手，逐步扩大自身在社会生活中的发言权。这种“自下而上”的策略不仅能够培养民众的参与意识，也能够增强他们对公共事务的责任感和归属感。
  • 具体策略：
    • 在地方政府和社区治理中，引入“参与式预算”机制，让社区成员能够参与地方财政和公共项目的决策。托克维尔认为，这种参与能够帮助民众认识到他们在地方事务中所具有的实际影响力，从而增强他们对公共事务的信心。
    • 推动社区听证会、公开讨论和地方选举等机制，让民众在相对安全的环境中体验并实践民主参与。尽管这些机制初期可能局限于非敏感领域，但它们可以逐步培养一种开放的公共文化。
• 地方自治的推广与公民社会的培育： 托克维尔在分析美国民主制度时，特别强调地方自治是民主精神的核心。地方自治能够将民众的注意力集中在具体的公共事务上，而不是陷入抽象的政治争论中。对于那国而言，可以通过推动地方自治和基层选举的方式，让民众逐步形成对公共权力的监督意识。尤其在农村和城市社区中，可以尝试引入更为广泛的民主选举和决策参与，让民众有机会在地方治理中发挥作用。
  • 实际路径：
    • 在农村和城市基层社区试点更加公开、公正的村委会选举和居委会选举，并通过法律保障选举的公平性和公开性。这些试点可以作为未来更大规模改革的实验场，逐步推动基层权力的透明化和合法化。
    • 建立基层社区的“公民议会”或“公共咨询委员会”，让民众能够就地方公共事务（如城市规划、社区管理、地方财政分配）进行讨论和决策，从而形成一种初步的权力制衡。

3. 推动“权利保障型”法治建设：从法律入手，强化权力制衡

    托克维尔在《旧制度与大革命》中指出，当法律能够有效限制权力时，自由社会的土壤便得以培育。那国当前面临的一个核心问题是法律的效力受到权力的制约，而非权力受法律约束。因此，重建法治的权威性是实现社会变革的关键。

• 建立独立的司法体系： 要解决“怯抗争”的困境，必须通过法治改革来重建法律对权力的制约作用。托克维尔认为，独立的司法机构是保护公民权利的最后防线。对于那国而言，这意味着需要逐步引入以下改革措施：
  • 设立独立的宪法法院：设立一个专门的宪法法院或宪法监督机构，对所有法律和政府行为的合宪性进行审查。托克维尔强调，宪法法院能够在国家权力与公民权利之间建立一种有效的制衡关系，从而防止权力的滥用。
  • 推动司法人员的独立性改革：设立独立的法官任命委员会，确保司法人员的任命不再受到行政和党务机构的直接干预，从而使法官能够在面对权力时保持独立性和公正性。
• 引入“公共权利保护机制”： 为了保障民众在表达和参与中的权利，可以建立专门的“公共权利保护机构”（如人权委员会、信息自由办公室等），为公民在公共事务中提供合法的救济渠道。
  • 增强法律的透明度与公正性：通过立法引入“信息公开法”，确保政府在决策和执法中必须公开相关信息，让公民能够获得准确的法律和政策依据。这种法律透明度的提升能够有效遏制权力滥用，增强公民对法律的信任感。

4. 引入“多元制衡”机制：逐步实现权力分立

    托克维尔在分析法国大革命前的旧制度时指出：“任何社会若无权力的多元制衡，便无以抵御权力的专断。”当前那国面临的一个根本问题在于权力高度集中，缺乏有效的权力分立和制衡机制。要实现真正的社会变革，必须逐步推动权力的多元化分配，并通过制度化的安排来实现权力的分立。

• 从党政分开到多元制衡： 那国当前的权力体系高度集中于中央政府和执政党内部，导致权力缺乏外部制衡。托克维尔认为，权力的制衡必须从“权力主体的多元化”开始，即通过引入独立的立法机构、地方自治力量和社会监督力量来实现。
  • 推动党政分开，建立行政与立法的制衡关系：
    • 通过改革逐步推动“党政分开”，减少党务机构对行政管理的直接干预，让行政机构在法律和公众监督下独立运作。托克维尔指出，当政治权力和行政权力过度混合时，社会的制衡机制便会失效，导致权力的无限扩张。因此，只有通过明确的党政分离，才能实现权力的相互制约。
  • 扩大地方自治权力，建立“分权制衡”体系：
    • 在地方层面，赋予地方政府更多的自主决策权，并通过地方立法和地方选举建立地方权力的独立性。托克维尔认为，地方自治是民主精神的基础，因为它能够让民众在地方事务中真正感受到权力的力量。那国可以通过逐步扩大地方立法和地方自治权力，来分散中央集权，建立初步的“分权制衡”体系。
• 推动媒体自由与社会监督： 托克维尔在《民主在美国》中特别强调了新闻自由和舆论监督的作用。他指出：“没有自由的媒体，公民便失去了对权力滥用的警戒。”对于那国而言，推动媒体自由和扩大舆论监督将是实现社会变革的重要步骤。
  • 放宽新闻管制，允许独立媒体的发展：通过立法保障媒体的独立性，逐步解除对新闻报道的严格管控，让民众能够通过多元的媒体渠道获得真实的信息。即使在初期，独立媒体的规模和影响力可能有限，但它们的存在本身就是对权力的一种制约。
  • 建立“公众参与型”监督机制：允许民众和媒体通过合法渠道对政府行为进行监督和批评，建立舆论监督的“安全区”。托克维尔认为，只有当公民能够自由地表达意见，并通过法律手段进行监督时，权力的滥用才能被有效遏制。

第四部分：结论——从无力到力量的转变

    托克维尔曾说：“任何社会的力量都源自于个人的自由意志与责任感。”今天的高度集权社会正处在一个历史性的十字路口：一方面，权力的集中化和社会的犬儒化使民众陷入普遍的无力感；另一方面，经济发展与信息传播的进步也为个体觉醒和社会变革提供了新的契机。

    只有当个人意识到自己的责任，并在思想上和行动上逐步摆脱“自愿的奴役”时，社会的变革力量才会开始萌芽。这种转变需要时间，但从历史来看，每一次伟大的社会变革都源自少数先行者的觉醒与行动。因此，在面对困境时，不应只是消极等待，而应从个体的觉醒、社会的重建、法律的改革和权力的制衡入手，逐步推动高度集权社会从“被动的被动性”到“积极的参与性”的根本转变。

    未来的社会转型，既需要托克维尔所说的“公共精神”的回归，也需要公民对自由与责任的重新认同。只有当越来越多的人能够超越“润不出、想不清、没勇气、怯抗争”的状态，真正承担起自己的公民责任时，社会变革的力量才会逐渐积聚，从而推动国家的未来走向一个更加自由、公正的社会环境。托克维尔认为，社会的变革并非仅仅取决于制度的改变，更在于公民的内心是否能够觉醒，并在行动中体现出对自由、责任和公正的追求。那国当前所面临的困局，恰恰在于个人和社会处于一种“被动的被动性”状态：权力的集中和制度的封闭固然是主要原因，但个体在长期的社会压制中逐渐丧失了自我表达的意志和勇气，形成了一种普遍的犬儒化心理。

    尽管如此，历史的经验告诉我们，社会变革的契机往往在于最微小的个体意识的觉醒和微观社会力量的逐步形成。当越来越多的人从无力感中走出来，开始在个人生活、社区事务和公共表达中重新建立信任、责任和行动的连接时，社会的活力便会重新被点燃。

    因此，从“无力”到“力量”的转变必须是一个多层次、渐进式的过程。以下将从托克维尔的理论视角出发，提出高度集权社会未来变革的三大阶段和关键策略，并以此勾画出一条从个体觉醒到制度改革的长远路径。

第一阶段：个体觉醒与思想重建

    托克维尔认为，社会变革的前提是个体的思想觉醒和公共精神的重建。只有当个人能够在思想上摆脱恐惧、在精神上摆脱犬儒化时，社会变革才有可能真正发生。那国当前的困局在于，人们被困在一种深层的心理枷锁中，而这正是托克维尔所描述的“自愿的奴役”状态的典型表现。因此，未来的第一步是从个体意识的重建开始：

1、打破“思想监禁”，重建批判性思维：托克维尔认为，当社会被强制性意识形态所控制时，个人就会逐渐失去独立思考的能力，进而陷入一种“思想上的自我监禁”。在那国，这种现象表现为教育系统和媒体长期灌输单一的思想模式，使得民众无法独立思考和判断。

策略：在当代信息技术的帮助下，可以通过创建网络讨论组、文化交流沙龙和线上线下的读书会等形式，鼓励个体通过自我教育和思想交流来重新培养批判性思维。托克维尔指出，思想的解放始于“言论的自由”，因此，尽管初期讨论可能局限在非敏感话题上，但这种独立讨论空间的建立能够为思想觉醒提供必要的土壤。

2、重建个人的道德勇气与社会责任感：托克维尔认为，真正的社会变革不仅需要思想上的觉醒，更需要道德上的勇气和社会责任感。今天，许多那国人因为恐惧而放弃了对正义和真理的追求，将“沉默”视为一种生存策略。这种状态只有通过重建道德勇气才能得到改变。

策略：通过挖掘历史人物（如早期革命者、社会活动家、甚至现代公益领袖）的榜样力量，激励人们重新审视自己的道德责任。托克维尔指出，当一个社会缺乏英雄时，个人便失去了追求更高价值的动力。因此，重塑历史中的英雄形象，并将他们的精神融入当代文化中，是重建道德勇气的重要步骤。

3、构建小型社群与信任网络：托克维尔强调，当个体的力量被分散和孤立时，他们便会陷入无助和恐惧。因此，社会变革的第一步是通过建立小型社群和地方性组织来重建人与人之间的信任关系。对于那国而言，这种信任关系的重建可以从非政治化的社区活动、文化沙龙和宗教团体开始。

策略：鼓励民众以兴趣小组、公益活动和文化交流的形式建立小型社群，这些社群不直接触及政治议题，但能够为人们提供一个相对安全的思想和情感交流空间，从而逐步形成社会信任和集体行动的基础。

第二阶段：社会参与与公共空间的扩展

    托克维尔认为，当个体意识到自己的力量并开始行动时，社会的公共空间便会逐渐扩展。这一过程需要通过实际的社会参与和公共行动来实现。那国的公共空间长期受到压制，但近年来，随着互联网和新媒体的兴起，民众在公共事务中的参与度逐渐增加。这种趋势虽然遭遇了强力的遏制，但也表明社会对公共空间的需求在不断增长。

1、推动基层民主与社区参与：托克维尔指出，地方自治和基层民主是民主社会的基石。那国未来的社会变革可以从基层社区和地方自治入手，通过扩大村委会和社区委员会的选举和自治权，让民众有更多的机会直接参与地方公共事务。

策略：在农村地区和城市社区中推动更加公开、公正的基层选举，并逐步放松对候选人资格的限制。通过扩大地方自治权和社区民主实践，让民众能够在地方事务中真正感受到自己的权利和力量，从而增强他们对公共事务的兴趣和参与度。

2、建立“公共议事会”与社区公共论坛：托克维尔认为，当公民能够在公共事务中表达意见、参与决策时，他们的公民意识便会迅速增长。因此，可以在社区和地方政府中设立“公共议事会”或“公共论坛”，让民众能够就地方事务（如环境保护、社区管理）进行公开讨论。

策略：通过“地方公民议会”或“社区公共论坛”的形式，让民众有机会在地方事务中进行讨论和协商。这种“自下而上”的参与机制能够培养公民的政治意识，并为未来更大规模的社会参与奠定基础。

3、发展社会公益与社会监督组织：托克维尔指出，社会公益和社会监督组织能够在国家与公民之间建立一种“缓冲带”，从而避免社会矛盾的激化。对于那国而言，可以通过推动社会公益组织和独立监督组织的发展来实现这一目标。

策略：允许并鼓励社会公益组织在教育、环境、扶贫等相对“安全”的领域发展，并逐步扩大它们的监督权和参与权。通过这些组织的存在，民众能够找到参与公共事务的合法渠道，从而推动社会的逐步开放。

第三阶段：制度改革与权力制衡的实现

    托克维尔认为，当社会参与和公共精神逐渐形成时，制度改革便成为社会变革的下一个必然步骤。制度改革的目标是实现权力的分立与制衡，让社会各个群体都能够在法律框架内表达意见，并通过制度化的方式实现利益的平衡。

1、引入“分权制衡”机制：托克维尔在《旧制度与大革命》中指出，当权力无法被有效分立时，社会便会陷入一种“过度集权的恶性循环”。因此，未来的改革目标是通过引入“分权制衡”机制来实现权力的相互制约和监督。

策略：逐步在地方和中央引入“立法、司法与行政”的权力分立机制，并通过地方立法、独立司法和媒体监督来实现权力的多元化。

2、推动宪政体制的建立：宪政体制是托克维尔认为实现自由和法治的最高形式。通过设立独立的宪法法院和公民权利保护机构，确保任何政府行为都必须在法律的框架内进行，并接受公民的监督。

策略：设立独立的宪法法院和监察委员会，对所有政府行为进行合宪性审查，防止权力的过度集中。

结语：从觉醒到行动的历史使命

    托克维尔总结道：“自由的社会并非天赐，而是通过公民长期的努力和斗争逐渐建立的。”那国的社会变革同样需要无数个体的觉醒与坚持，从个人到社群，从社群到社会，再从社会到制度，最终实现一个更加自由、公正的社会。只有当越来越多的人从“被动的服从”走向“主动的参与”时，真正的社会变革才会成为可能。
    并不是说高度集权一无是处，也不是说宪政体制一定适合那国，但让人无法自由思想、自由追求快乐人生的体制肯定不合适。觉醒不在于一朝一夕，道德勇气也不是说有就有，时间终究会给出答案，躺平的年轻人会重新站起来成为历史的见证。

    不知道有没有足够的时间，让我们一起为此祷告！

（邮箱：[email protected]，不明之处敬请查阅托克维尔著作。）

How Did Tocqueville View the Dilemma of Highly Centralized Societies and the Path to Transformation?

Introduction: The Journey from Powerlessness to Awakening

“History tells us that every society must inevitably wrestle with the struggle between power and freedom. When power expands without restraint, the dignity and rights of individuals gradually vanish, and society falls into a state of passive silence. Yet when freedom is awakened, the abuse of power is challenged and resisted, sparking new social vitality.” — If Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–1859, the French historian, politician, and founding figure of political sociology) were still alive today, he might well begin his analysis of our current highly centralized society with such words.

The condition of a highly centralized society can be described as a form of collective “restricted passivity.” Although many have gradually become aware of the problems, dual pressures from both the external environment and internal psychology make effective action difficult. Many people find themselves helplessly trapped in a state of being “locked down”:

“Unable to get out” – not only are immigration and travel restricted, but social channels have become blocked, with upward mobility sealed off.

“Unable to think clearly” – prolonged ideological indoctrination and information control have weakened critical thinking.

“Lacking courage” – refined selfishness and cynicism lead people to avoid public responsibilities.

“Afraid to resist” – in facing overpowering authority without legal protection or systemic guarantees, individuals feel they cannot muster resistance.

How, then, can this state be broken? From where should people begin to reshape the power structure of society?

In works such as Democracy in America and The Old Regime and the Revolution, Tocqueville explored similar social phenomena and formulated a series of classic theories. In the following, we begin with Tocqueville’s core ideas, combine them with aspects of contemporary social conditions, analyze the roots of the predicament, and explore possible paths to solutions in search of a way forward from individual awakening to social transformation.

Part I: An Analysis of Current Society – Four States and the Predicament of Mass Passivity

1. “Unable to Get Out” – The Limits of the External Environment and the Spread of Powerlessness

Tocqueville noted in Democracy in America: “When state power continually expands and the avenues of social mobility become increasingly obstructed, the freedom of individual action is fettered by unseen chains.” In a highly centralized society, “unable to get out” refers not only to blocked visas and restricted immigration but also to the rigidification of social structures and the closure of upward channels. With power and resources concentrated in the hands of a small elite, most people lose the ability to choose their own fate—sometimes not just within one generation, but even across several. This creates a pervasive sense of powerlessness and deep-seated disappointment about the future.

Limited Social Mobility and the Entrapment of Destiny: Similar to Tocqueville’s analysis of the Ancien Régime in France, the concentration of power leads to entrenched social classes and blocked mobility. Individuals find themselves unable to change their fate through legitimate means—a state that can extend over generations. This results in widespread feelings of impotence.

The Spread of a “Locked-In” Mentality: Tocqueville argued that when individuals lose freedom of action, their spirits are gradually eroded by fear and helplessness, ultimately plunging society into pervasive cynicism and passivity. In such states, many choose either to “internalize competition” (expending energy on futile contests) or to “lie flat” (abandon aspirations and resistance).

• “Unable to Think Clearly” – Prolonged Ideological Control and the Confinement of Thought

Tocqueville observed: “The most terrible tyrannies are not those that inflict pain, but those that deprive people of the sense of pain.” When prolonged ideological control and the blockade of information become the norm, an individual’s ability to think critically is slowly eroded. Even if one becomes aware of the existence of problems, it becomes difficult to understand their root causes.

The Internalization of Ideology and the “Gentle Shackles” on Thought: Tocqueville noted in Democracy in America that a democratic society can sometimes give rise to a “soft despotism”—one that, through ideological indoctrination and the educational system, encourages people to voluntarily accept a state of passive obedience. In such societies, long-term education and propaganda lead citizens not to question authority but to view “obedience” as a moral duty.

“Doublethink” and Cognitive Confusion: Growing up in an environment replete with conflicting information, people may adapt to a mode of “doublethink,” in which they simultaneously accept mutually contradictory views without experiencing internal conflict. In such a state, systematic critical thinking is stifled, and the true nature of the problem remains obscured. Tocqueville believed this cognitive confusion traps society in a vortex of self-deception.

• “Lacking Courage” – Refined Selfishness and the Cynicism That Prevents Resistance

In The Old Regime and the Revolution, Tocqueville described the phenomenon of “refined selfishness” that prevailed on the eve of the French Revolution: individuals striving to maximize their own interests while avoiding any engagement with public responsibility. He argued that this form of selfishness arose from a general sense of powerlessness and fear of authority.

The Convergence of Selfishness and Cynicism: In that society, when confronted with powerful authority, many retreated into the private sphere, meticulously managing their own lives while shunning public duty. This refined selfishness, intertwined with cynicism (a deep skepticism of moral pursuits and public ideals), led to a widespread disregard for social justice. Tocqueville noted that this mentality was not merely an expression of powerlessness but also a renunciation of the spirit of freedom.

Lack of Moral Courage and the Dissolution of Social Responsibility: Tocqueville emphasized that the formation of a free society requires “moral courage”—the willingness to sacrifice personal interests in defense of truth and justice. In today’s highly centralized society, many lack such moral courage, having grown accustomed to surviving under fear.

• “Afraid to Resist” – Political Repression and the Absence of Legal and Institutional Support

Tocqueville observed in his analysis of the Ancien Régime that “when law becomes an appendage of power, individuals lose their trust in justice.” In that society, when individuals faced injustice, they found it difficult to appeal to the law; any attempt to challenge authority risked severe political retaliation.

The Negation of Law and the Collapse of Social Justice: In highly centralized societies, the law is often viewed solely as an instrument to maintain order rather than as a defender of justice. When citizens are unable to use legal means to protect their rights, their willingness and ability to resist abuse of power are significantly undermined.

Political Retaliation and the Erosion of Social Trust: Tocqueville argued that any society must be built on a “social contract” in which citizens trust that the government will execute the law fairly and impartially. When this trust is broken, society falls into a general mood of suspicion and indifference.

Part II: The Deep-Rooted Causes of Social Predicaments and Tocqueville’s Theoretical Foundations

1. Concentration of Power and “Soft Despotism” 

In Democracy in America, Tocqueville introduced the concept of “soft despotism,” revealing a form of power expansion in modern society that appears harmless yet is dangerously pervasive. This form of despotism does not enforce control through violence and terror but, in the name of “public interest” or “social harmony,” exerts a gentle yet omnipresent control over individuals.

Manifestations of “Soft Despotism” in Highly Centralized States: In such a state, although political movements may no longer be as extreme as during the era of “literary/revolutionary” fervor, state control remains stringent—expressed in a more subtle, gentle, and institutionalized manner. Through education, media control, and even “social credit systems,” the state molds citizen behavior, gradually eroding independent judgment and individual will. This pattern of power not only diminishes citizens’ resolve to resist but also induces a kind of “voluntary submission” in which, despite being aware of the problems, people yield to fear and systemic guidance.

Tocqueville’s Warning on the Perils of Soft Despotism: Tocqueville warned that soft despotism is more dangerous than traditional forms of brutal despotism because it does not provoke open rebellion or uprising. Instead, it quietly undermines individual autonomy until the entire society is trapped in a state of “voluntary slavery.” In such a condition, society may appear externally stable and harmonious, but it is, in reality, shackled by a profound spiritual bondage that drains its vitality and moral resilience.

• Weakening of the Rule of Law and the “Instrumentalization” of Legislation

Tocqueville remarked in The Old Regime and the Revolution that the law should act as a “neutral arbitrator” between citizens and state power. However, when the law becomes a mere appendage of power, it loses its capacity to uphold justice and instead turns into a tool for controlling society and suppressing dissent.

The “Instrumentalization” of Law: In contemporary highly centralized societies, legal frameworks may nominally guarantee the protection of citizens’ rights in the constitution, but in practice, they are frequently subject to interference from administrative power and political imperatives. Law is often used as a tool for maintaining stability rather than as a cornerstone for defending citizens’ rights. Tocqueville warned that when law is subordinated to political needs, individuals lose trust in justice, and society eventually descends into a widespread nihilism regarding the rule of law.

Lack of Checks and Balances Leading to Legal Ineffectiveness: Tocqueville argued that only when the legislative, judicial, and executive powers are balanced against one another can the law effectively protect citizens from arbitrary power. However, in a highly centralized state, where power is too concentrated, the law loses its independence and fails to constrain power effectively. Instead, it is used to legitimize the expansion of power and to suppress dissenters, leaving the public feeling helpless in the face of abuse and further deepening societal powerlessness.

• Extreme Individualism and Cynicism (“Atomization”)

Tocqueville believed that the healthy functioning of a democratic society depends on a combination of individual freedom and public spirit. When individuals care only about their own interests and neglect public affairs, society becomes “atomized.” In that state, while individuals may appear free, they have actually lost their capacity for genuine political and social participation.

Cynicism and Refined Selfishness in Highly Centralized Societies: Today, many people in highly centralized societies choose to withdraw from public life and concentrate on personal or family interests. This phenomenon of refined selfishness, which on the surface might seem a pragmatic adaptation to complexity, is essentially an escape from social responsibility. Tocqueville argued that when individual freedom is divorced from public spirit, it degenerates into a form of negative, self-serving freedom that ultimately leads to widespread cynicism within society.

The Perils of Cynicism and the “Collective Action Problem”: According to Tocqueville, cynicism brings with it a collective action dilemma: everyone recognizes the problems but, lacking trust or mechanisms for cooperation, no one is willing to act. In the end, everyone remains trapped in a state of “waiting for someone else to move,” and the drive for social change is lost. This cynical attitude manifests as “playing it safe” and adopting an “it’s none of my business” stance, so that even if a few individuals attempt to trigger change, they struggle to garner broad support.

• The Loss of Public Spirit and “Voluntary Slavery”

Tocqueville maintained that the absence of public spirit is the fundamental cause of a democratic society’s decay. In The Old Regime and the Revolution, he argued that when individuals concern themselves solely with private affairs, state power is free to expand and gradually lead society into a condition of “voluntary slavery.” In this state, people prefer to sacrifice their political freedom and social rights for the sake of immediate material benefits and a sense of security.

The Phenomenon of “Voluntary Slavery” in Highly Centralized States: In today’s highly centralized nation, many citizens display a “voluntary conformity” when facing state power. In order to avoid risk, they willingly relinquish the right to express themselves and to act, accepting an ordered but stifled social arrangement. This state is not imposed by overt coercion; it arises because individuals, over years of suppression, have internalized an “acceptance of the status quo.”

Tocqueville’s Analysis of Voluntary Slavery: Tocqueville noted that the most dangerous aspect of voluntary slavery is that it does not provoke strong resistance because each person feels a certain “security.” They sacrifice freedom in exchange for a temporary peace. Yet this state, although seemingly stable, is fragile. Should the material foundations of society be shaken—by an economic crisis or political turmoil—the superficial stability would quickly collapse, plunging society into chaos and disorder.

Part III: From Predicament to Breakthrough—Paths and Strategies from Tocqueville’s Perspective

1. From Individual Awakening to Social Engagement: Rebuilding the “Public Spirit”

Tocqueville believed that the first step toward social change begins with the awakening of individual consciousness, particularly through the reconstruction of the public spirit. When citizens recognize that they are not only managers of their private lives but also active participants in public affairs, the seeds of a free society can begin to sprout.

• Rebuilding Personal Responsibility and Moral Courage: Tocqueville pointed out that the vitality of a democratic society comes from the sense of responsibility that individuals feel toward public matters. To achieve this, it is essential to use education and cultural enlightenment to help people understand their roles in society. In highly centralized societies, intellectuals, religious leaders, and thought provokers must take on this responsibility—spreading ideas and engaging in cultural activities to awaken the public’s sense of civic duty.
• Establishing Small Communities and Social Trust Networks: Tocqueville argued that when large-scale social structures fail to function effectively, small communities and local self-governing organizations become the sources of social vitality. In our context, establishing small groups—such as community study groups, religious gatherings, and cultural salons—can help rebuild social trust. Although these groups may be small in scale, they offer citizens a safe space for discussion and action, ultimately fostering the growth of broader social forces.

2. Promoting Grassroots Democracy and Social Autonomy: Starting “From the Bottom Up”

In Democracy in America, Tocqueville praised the American system of local autonomy. He argued that local governance is the most reliable guarantor of freedom because it allows citizens to directly participate in public affairs and to feel the impact of their actions.

• Expanding Local Governance and Grassroots Autonomy:In our society, promoting grassroots democratic elections and community self-governance can boost public participation. Although the centralization of power may be difficult to change in the short term, gradually increasing the power of local governments and civil society can lay a foundation for future institutional reforms.
• Strengthening Public Expression and Social Oversight:Citizens should be encouraged to participate in local affairs—such as environmental protection and community services—and to use legal means to gradually expand their voice in local governance. Tocqueville repeatedly emphasized in Democracy in America that citizen participation and public debate are crucial in preventing despotism. Even within highly centralized societies, individuals can start by engaging in local projects (e.g., community safety, educational affairs) to expand their influence in social life. This “bottom-up” strategy not only cultivates a sense of participation among citizens but also reinforces their responsibility and belonging in public affairs.

Specific Strategies:

• Introducing Participatory Budgeting in Local Governance: In local government and community management, introduce mechanisms that allow community members to participate in decisions related to public funds and projects. Tocqueville believed that such participation helps citizens understand the tangible influence they wield locally, thereby boosting confidence in public affairs.
  • Encouraging Community Hearings, Public Discussions, and Local Elections: Establish processes that allow citizens to experience and practice democratic participation in a relatively safe environment. Although initially these mechanisms might cover non-sensitive areas, over time they can cultivate an open public culture.
• Promoting Local Autonomy and Cultivating Civil Society: Tocqueville emphasized local autonomy as the core of democratic spirit. Local autonomy enables citizens to focus on concrete public issues rather than becoming lost in abstract political debates. For our society, encouraging local self-governance and grassroots elections can help foster a civic oversight mentality. Particularly in rural areas and urban communities, experimenting with more transparent democratic elections and decision-making processes can offer citizens the opportunity to exert influence in local governance.

Practical Pathways:

• Conduct pilot programs in villages and neighborhood committees with more open and just elections, and legally ensure the fairness and transparency of these processes. Such pilots can serve as test cases for larger-scale reforms, gradually advancing the transparency and legitimacy of grassroots power.
  • Establish “citizen assemblies” or “public advisory committees” in local communities. These bodies would allow citizens to deliberate on local public affairs (such as urban planning, community management, and fiscal allocation), thereby forming a preliminary system of checks and balances.

3. Promoting “Rights-Protection-Based” Rule of Law Construction: Strengthening Checks on Power Through Legal Means

Tocqueville argued in The Old Regime and the Revolution that when the law can effectively limit power, the soil for a free society can be cultivated. A core problem in our society today is that the effectiveness of the law is undermined by the power it is meant to check rather than being subject to that power. Therefore, restoring the authority of the rule of law is key to achieving social transformation.

• Establishing an Independent Judicial System: To resolve the predicament of being “afraid to resist,” it is crucial to reconstruct the capacity of the law to restrict power through legal reforms. Tocqueville believed that an independent judicial institution is the final safeguard of citizens’ rights. For our society, this means gradually introducing reforms such as:
  • Establishing an Independent Constitutional Court: Create a dedicated constitutional court or supervisory agency that reviews the constitutionality of all laws and government actions. Tocqueville emphasized that such a court can establish an effective system of checks between state power and citizens’ rights, preventing the abuse of power.
  • Reforming the Independence of Judicial Personnel: Create independent judicial appointment committees to ensure that judges are no longer directly interfered with by administrative or party agencies. This will allow judges to remain impartial and stand independently when confronting state power.
• Introducing “Public Rights Protection Mechanisms”: To safeguard citizens’ rights to express themselves and to participate in public affairs, establish specialized “public rights protection institutions” (such as human rights commissions or freedom of information offices) that provide legal avenues for redress when citizens face injustices.
  • Enhancing Legal Transparency and Fairness: Enact legislation mandating “information disclosure,” ensuring that the government must make relevant information public when making decisions or enforcing laws. Increased transparency can effectively curb the abuse of power and enhance citizens’ trust in the law.

4. Introducing a “Multipolar Checks and Balances” Mechanism: Gradually Achieving the Separation of Powers

Tocqueville noted in his analysis of the pre-revolutionary French system: “Any society that lacks a multipolar balance of power is unable to resist arbitrary power.” A fundamental problem in our society is the extreme concentration of power, with a deficiency of effective separation and checks. To effect true social transformation, power must be gradually diversified and distributed through institutional arrangements that ensure its separation.

• From Party-Government Separation to Multipolar Balance: Currently, power in our society is highly concentrated within the central government and ruling party, leading to a lack of external checks. Tocqueville maintained that genuine checks on power must begin with “multiplicity in power holders”—in other words, by incorporating an independent legislature, local autonomous forces, and social oversight bodies.
  • Promoting the Separation of Party and Government, and Establishing a Balance Between Administration and Legislation: Reform the system gradually to promote “party-government separation,” reducing the direct interference of party organs in administrative management, so that administrative bodies can operate independently under legal and public oversight. Tocqueville warned that when political and administrative powers are overly merged, the system of checks and balances fails and power can expand without limit. Only through a clear separation of party and government can power be mutually constrained.
  • Expanding Local Autonomy and Establishing a “Decentralized Checks and Balances” System: At the local level, grant local governments greater autonomy in decision-making, and establish independent local legislative bodies and local elections to strengthen the independence of local power. Tocqueville argued that local autonomy is the foundation of the democratic spirit because it allows citizens to truly feel the force of power in local affairs. Gradually expanding local legislative and self-governance powers can help disperse centralization and establish a preliminary “decentralized checks and balances” system.
• Promoting Media Freedom and Social Supervision: In Democracy in America, Tocqueville particularly stressed the role of a free press and public scrutiny. He noted, “Without a free press, citizens lose their ability to warn against the abuse of power.” For our society, fostering media freedom and expanding public oversight will be critical steps toward social transformation.
  • Relaxing News Control to Allow the Development of Independent Media: Through legislation that guarantees media independence, gradually lift the strict constraints on news reporting so that citizens can access accurate information from diverse media channels. Even if, initially, the scale and influence of independent media may be limited, their very existence serves as a check on power.
  • Establishing “Citizen Participation” Supervision Mechanisms: Allow citizens and the media to legally monitor and criticize government behavior by creating a “safe space” for public opinion oversight. Tocqueville argued that only when citizens can freely express opinions and use legal means to supervise power will the abuse of authority be effectively curbed.

Part IV: Conclusion—The Transformation from Powerlessness to Strength

Tocqueville once said, “The strength of any society is derived from the free will and sense of responsibility of its individuals.” Today’s highly centralized society stands at a historic crossroads: on one hand, the concentration of power and the pervasive cynicism have plunged citizens into a widespread sense of powerlessness; on the other hand, economic development and the advancement of information technology also offer fresh opportunities for individual awakening and social transformation.

Only when individuals realize their responsibilities and gradually break free from the “voluntary enslavement”—both in thought and in action—can the forces for social change begin to emerge. Such a transformation may take time, but history shows that every great social revolution has its roots in the awakening and actions of a few pioneers. Therefore, when confronted with our predicament, we must not simply wait passively; we need to begin by awakening the individual, rebuilding society, reforming the law, and establishing checks and balances on power—gradually transforming our highly centralized society from a state of “passive powerlessness” into one of “active participation.”

The future of social transformation requires not only what Tocqueville called the return of the “public spirit” but also a re-recognition by citizens of the values of freedom and responsibility. Only when more and more people can transcend the conditions of “being unable to get out, thinking unclearly, lacking courage, and fearing to resist” and truly assume their civic responsibilities will the power for social change accumulate and drive our nation toward a freer and fairer social environment. Tocqueville believed that social transformation depends not only on institutional changes but also on whether the hearts of citizens can awaken and express the pursuit of freedom, responsibility, and justice in their actions. The current predicament in our society is precisely that both individuals and society are stuck in a state of “passive passivity”: while the concentration of power and the closed institutional structure are the main culprits, prolonged social suppression has gradually robbed individuals of the will and courage to express themselves freely, fostering a widespread cynical mindset.

Nevertheless, historical experience teaches us that the opportunity for social change often lies in the smallest spark of individual awareness and in the gradual emergence of grassroots social forces. As more people step out from their sense of powerlessness and begin to rebuild trust, responsibility, and active engagement in their personal lives, community affairs, and public discussions, the vitality of society will be rekindled.

Thus, the transformation from “powerlessness” to “strength” must be a multi-layered and gradual process. Below, drawing from Tocqueville’s theoretical perspective, we outline three major phases and key strategies for the future transformation of highly centralized society, sketching a long-term pathway from individual awakening to institutional reform.

Phase One: Individual Awakening and the Rebuilding of Thought

Tocqueville believed that the precondition for social change is the awakening of individual thought and the reconstruction of the public spirit. Only when individuals can free themselves in thought from fear and liberate their spirits from cynicism can social change truly take root. Our present predicament is that people are ensnared in a deep psychological bondage—a condition that is a typical manifestation of what Tocqueville described as “voluntary enslavement.” The first step for the future must therefore be the reconstruction of individual consciousness:

1. Breaking the “Prison of Thought” and Rebuilding Critical Thinking: Tocqueville argued that when society is controlled by a coercive ideology, individuals gradually lose the ability to think independently, thus becoming prisoners of their own thoughts. In our society, this phenomenon manifests through the education system and media that long promote a singular mode of thinking, leaving the public unable to think or judge independently.

Strategy: With today’s information technology, create online discussion groups, cultural salons, and hybrid (online/offline) book clubs to encourage individuals to foster critical thinking through self-education and exchange of ideas. Tocqueville noted that the liberation of thought begins with freedom of speech; even if early discussions are limited to non-sensitive topics, establishing these independent discussion spaces can provide the necessary soil for the awakening of thought.

• Rebuilding Personal Moral Courage and a Sense of Social Responsibility: Tocqueville maintained that true social change requires not only an awakening in thought but also moral courage and a sense of responsibility toward society. Today, many people in our society surrender the pursuit of justice and truth out of fear, treating “silence” as a survival strategy. This state can only be transformed by rebuilding moral courage.

Strategy: Draw inspiration from historical figures—such as early revolutionaries, social activists, or even modern public welfare leaders—to encourage people to reexamine their moral responsibilities. Tocqueville pointed out that when a society lacks heroes, individuals lose the motivation to pursue higher values. Therefore, reviving the images of these heroes and integrating their spirit into contemporary culture is an important step in rebuilding moral courage.

• Building Small Communities and Trust Networks:Tocqueville emphasized that when individual power is dispersed and isolated, people become engulfed by helplessness and fear. Thus, the first step toward social change is to rebuild trust among individuals by establishing small communities and local organizations. In our case, this rebuilding can begin with non-political community activities, cultural salons, and religious groups.

Strategy: Encourage the formation of small groups based on common interests, public welfare initiatives, and cultural exchanges. Although these communities might not directly address political issues, they can provide a relatively safe space for intellectual and emotional dialogue, gradually forming the foundation for social trust and collective action.

Phase Two: Social Engagement and the Expansion of Public Space

Tocqueville believed that as individuals realize their power and begin to act, the public sphere expands. This process must be achieved through concrete social engagement and public action. Although our public space has long been suppressed, in recent years, the rise of the Internet and new media has gradually increased citizen participation in public affairs. While this trend has encountered strong resistance, it also indicates that the demand for public space continues to grow.

1. Promoting Grassroots Democracy and Community Participation: Tocqueville argued that local autonomy and grassroots democracy are the cornerstones of a democratic society. The future of our social transformation can begin with grassroots communities and local autonomy. By expanding elections and autonomy for village and community committees, citizens can have more opportunities to directly participate in local public affairs.

Strategy: In rural areas and urban communities, promote more open and just grassroots elections while gradually easing restrictions on candidate qualifications. By expanding local autonomy and democratic practice, citizens can truly feel their rights and power in local affairs, thereby increasing their interest in and participation in public matters.

• Establishing “Public Assemblies” and Community Forums: Tocqueville believed that when citizens can express opinions and participate in decision-making in public affairs, their civic consciousness grows rapidly. Accordingly, communities and local governments should establish “public assemblies” or “community forums” where citizens can openly discuss local issues (such as environmental protection and community management).

Strategy: Organize “local citizen assemblies” or “community forums” to provide an opportunity for residents to discuss and negotiate local affairs in a bottom-up participation mechanism. This approach helps cultivate political awareness and lays the groundwork for broader social engagement.

• Developing Social Welfare and Oversight Organizations: Tocqueville noted that social welfare and oversight organizations serve as a “buffer” between the state and the citizens, helping to prevent the intensification of social conflicts. For our country, promoting the development of such organizations—particularly in relatively “safe” fields like education, environmental protection, and poverty alleviation—can help achieve this goal.

Strategy: Encourage and support the formation of social welfare organizations and independent oversight bodies. Through these entities, citizens can find legitimate channels to participate in public affairs, gradually pushing the society toward a more open and participatory model.

Phase Three: Institutional Reform and the Realization of Checks and Balances on Power

Tocqueville believed that once social engagement and public spirit are established, institutional reform becomes the next inevitable step in social change. The goal of institutional reform is to achieve the separation of powers and balance, allowing all segments of society to express their opinions within the framework of the law and to realize a balance of interests through institutionalized means.

1. Introducing a “Decentralized Checks and Balances” Mechanism: In The Old Regime and the Revolution, Tocqueville noted that without effective separation of powers, society falls into a vicious cycle of excessive centralization. The objective for future reform, therefore, is to gradually introduce mechanisms of decentralized checks and balances that ensure mutual restraint and oversight.

Strategy: Gradually introduce the separation of powers among the legislative, judicial, and executive branches at both local and central levels. Use local legislation, independent judiciary, and media oversight to achieve diversified distribution of power.

• Advancing the Establishment of a Constitutional System: A constitutional system, as Tocqueville saw it, is the highest form of achieving freedom and the rule of law. By establishing independent constitutional courts and citizens’ rights protection agencies, we can ensure that all government actions are conducted within the framework of law and subject to public supervision.

Strategy: Establish independent constitutional courts and supervisory committees to review the constitutionality of all government actions and prevent excessive concentration of power.

Conclusion: The Historical Mission from Awakening to Action

Tocqueville summarized, “A free society is not granted by heaven but is gradually established through the long-term efforts and struggles of its citizens.” Our nation’s social transformation similarly relies on the awakening and persistence of countless individuals—from the personal to the communal, from society to the institutions—ultimately achieving a society that is freer and more just. Only when an increasing number of people move from passive obedience to proactive engagement will genuine social change become possible.

This is not to say that a highly centralized system is entirely devoid of merit, nor that a constitutional system is automatically suitable for our country. However, a system that prevents free thought and the pursuit of a joyful life cannot be acceptable. Awakening is not instantaneous, and moral courage is not instantly acquired; time will ultimately tell the truth, and even the youth who now lie flat will eventually stand up to bear witness to history.

If there is sufficient time, let us pray together for this cause!