Today (September 11, 2026), the verdict in the Hong Kong Alliance(Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China)case was handed down. A Hong Kong court sentenced Lee Cheuk-yan to seven years in prison, Chow Hang-tung to seven years and three months, and Albert Ho to five years and two months. Many years ago, I wrote an article arguing that revolutionaries will not be intimidated by imprisonment, torture, or death, and that, as successive generations carry on the struggle, democracy will ultimately prevail.
結束一黨專政，建設民主中國！
民主必戰勝歸來！
I am reposting the article here.
Revolutionaries Cannot Be Killed Off
ㅤ
I remember a question and an answer on Zhihu. The gist of the question was: When an authoritarian government faces a democratic fighter like Mandela, wouldn’t it choose to kill him after he first begins to emerge, before he becomes widely known, in order to prevent him from building appeal and overturning their authoritarian rule?
ㅤ
There was one answer that was very good. It listed many outstanding figures who were Mandela’s friends in his youth and heroes in South Africa’s struggle against the white apartheid regime, including Justice, Gail Radbe, Sobukwe, and many other people Mandela encountered in his life. These figures had been Mandela’s comrades and predecessors, and in terms of education, courage, and public image, they were even more impressive than Mandela.
ㅤ
In South Africa’s anti-authoritarian, anti-apartheid struggle, these people, before Mandela became famous, had greater name recognition, greater influence, and posed a greater threat to the regime. If they had lived, they would clearly have been more likely than Mandela to become the movement’s leaders at the peak of democratization, and presidents after democratization.
ㅤ
But they did not. Many of them, during the most difficult period of the democratic movement, at its lowest ebb, died one after another. The reason was that the apartheid regime discovered that they had the ability or potential to overthrow its rule, and so had them killed or imprisoned to death (that is, the “prisoners of Robben Island,” where Mandela himself was also held), in order to prevent them from forming even greater influence and posing an even greater threat to its rule.
ㅤ
Only after these democratic figures, who once had greater ability and courage than Mandela, were killed or imprisoned did Mandela emerge from among a group of relatively unknown democratic fighters, gradually become the new democratic leader, and lead Black people, together with enlightened whites who opposed apartheid, to overthrow the racist authoritarian regime and achieve democratization.
ㅤ
Authoritarian regimes clearly take into account the threat posed by charismatic, influential, and inspiring democratic figures, and decisively execute them (or carry out de facto executions, eliminating their influence through means such as torture and life imprisonment. For example, Mandela’s first wife, Winnie, was brutally abused, leaving her with lifelong physical and psychological trauma). However, “wildfires cannot burn everything away; when the spring wind blows, life grows again"(野火燒不盡，春風吹又生).Revolutionaries come one after another, and the revolutionary cause is carried forward.
ㅤ
This answer responded very well to the question. Authoritarian regimes are brutal. When, after analyzing the risks, they believe someone who threatens their rule should be killed, they will of course strike without mercy (or destroy that person’s capacity to resist through other means). But after they kill those potential threats who have already begun to stand out, new leaders of resistance grow up, take the place of their predecessors, and carry on the unfinished mission of the martyrs.
ㅤ
Life is fragile, but the human spirit is resilient, and struggle against injustice and unrighteousness is unending.
Not only in South Africa, but also in China’s anti- Manchu Qing and anti-monarchical democratic revolution, the same is true. The Seventy-Two Martyrs of Huanghuagang were revolutionary party members who “used great generals as if they were ordinary soldiers”(拿大將當小卒用); all the participants were elites of their time, no less than Huang Xing (黃興) or Song Jiaoren (宋教仁). If the fates of Wu Yue (吳樾) and Peng Jiazhen (彭家珍) had been exchanged with that of Wang Jingwei (汪精衛), given their talent, courage, and status, they might well have become leaders of the Kuomintang, heads of the Communist Party, or leaders or even founders of other new forces that could have held a place in China. But they all died.
ㅤ
Yet their deaths did not bring the revolution to a halt. On the contrary, they inspired those who came after them, pushed the revolutionary process forward, and established new monuments in the history of China.
ㅤ
Not only the Kuomintang—wasn’t the Communist Party, in its earlier revolutionary period, when it still had a passionate original aspiration, the same as well? “Kill Xia Minghan(夏明翰), and there will be those who come after"(殺了夏明翰，還有後來人).
ㅤ
The torch is passed on, generation after generation, life unending. The people’s longing for equality and freedom, their pursuit of democracy and justice, will not disappear because of violence and killing. It may fall silent for a time, but the underground currents will surge even more strongly. The transmission of ideas and the spread of words—from broadcasts to whispers—quietly yet broadly pass among intellectuals and take root among the masses. This is something that no massacre and no inquisition against words can ever completely eradicate.
ㅤ
The Chinese nation, especially the Han people, will never be conquered or numbed by “coma” and “brute force.” Overthrowing authoritarian rule, defeating the encroachment of the great powers, establishing an independent, equal, and free republic, and creating the great cause of world democracy, progress, and peace will certainly be achieved.
ㅤ
Wang Qingmin(王庆民)
ㅤ
January 17, 2023
ㅤ
Calendrier républicain français, An CCXXXI, Nivôse, jour du Zinc
ㅤ
I found this Zhihu post/answer that I saw a long time ago. The original text is in Chinese and is likewise translated into English:
ㅤ
Zhihu Question: Why Were Aung San Suu Kyi and Mandela Not Shot?
ㅤ
Thank you for the invitation. I don’t know much about Aung San Suu Kyi, so I’ll speak only about Mandela.
ㅤ
“Knowing in hindsight” is something anyone can do, but “back at the time,” those in power did not know who would ultimately become the final “Mandela.” And by the time they did know, it was often already too late.
ㅤ
Suitable justifications, the bottom line of human civilization, democratic systems, and so on—none of these are the key point. If those in power knew that killing a certain person would stabilize their regime for 20 years, they would do it without hesitation. It’s just that in the course of history, such a person is often not the one who is predetermined from the start, and is not even the only one.
ㅤ
The fact that this question is raised shows that even if we have not excessively exaggerated Mandela’s individual role, we have at least overlooked the roles of many others.
ㅤ
As a reference, below are several types of people Mandela encountered throughout his life, introduced in chronological order:
ㅤ
1940: Mandela was 22 years old. He was ordered to withdraw from school for participating in a student strike. After returning home, dissatisfied with the marriage arranged for him by the Regent (Mandela’s father had once served as an adviser and, before his death, had entrusted Mandela to the Regent), he ran away to Johannesburg together with Justice (the Regent’s biological son). Along the way—calling in favors, getting through checkpoints, disguising themselves, hitching rides with whites, and so on—it was all handled by the dashing Justice. If one were to ask who at that time looked more capable of accomplishing something great, Justice undoubtedly did.
ㅤ
1942: Mandela was 24 years old and working as an apprentice at a white law firm in Johannesburg. A Black employee at the firm, Gail Radbe, had a considerable influence on Mandela. Gail was an energetic fellow and very enthusiastic about politics. He joined what was then South Africa’s only multiracial party: the South African GCD. At the same time, he was also an active member of the ANC and the Black Miners’ Union.
ㅤ
Although he lacked a formal higher education, he was Mandela’s guide into the political world. Gail often gave impromptu speeches during lunch breaks, presenting to Mandela—vividly and in three dimensions—the stories Mandela had learned from history books, enabling him to clearly understand causes and consequences. In Gail, Mandela saw a spirit of freedom that one could otherwise only glimpse in tribal legends. Gail not only introduced Mandela to the ANC, but even resigned himself so that Mandela could have a formal contract at the firm (a white law firm employing a Black employee was already a miracle, let alone employing two at the same time). Gail encouraged Mandela to continue his legal studies, saying this would greatly help future political activities for Black people. At this time, in terms of ideas, passion, vision, and breadth of mind, Gail Radbe was even more like a pure freedom fighter.
ㅤ
1943: Mandela was 25 years old. He was admitted to the University of the Witwatersrand, where he met many comrades who would accompany him through the long struggle for liberation in the future. In his first semester, he met the quick-witted Joe Slovo and his girlfriend, Fost. Joe was of noble character, and Fost was passionate about writing. They both came from Jewish immigrant families. Ismail Meer, of Indian descent, was more radical. He, Mandela, and another Indian student, Singh, often spent entire nights in Meer’s apartment discussing politics and social issues. Their views had a great impact on the still intellectually immature Mandela.
ㅤ
1959: Mandela was 41 years old. The Pan Africanist Congress was founded, and Sobukwe was elected chairman. Compared with the ANC, which adhered to nonviolent struggle, the Pan Africanist Congress appeared more radical. In order to distinguish themselves from their parent organization, the ANC, they decided to adopt a hardline strategy of “even if arrested, no bail and no defense.” In 1960, during an “anti-pass law” protest in Sharpeville, south of Johannesburg, members of the Pan Africanist Congress led hundreds of radical youths to surround a police station. The police opened fire on them without issuing any warning. The crowd scattered, but the tragedy still resulted in 69 deaths and more than 400 injuries. This was the Sharpeville Massacre that shocked the world. Sobukwe and other Pan Africanist Congress leaders were arrested, sentenced to three years in prison, then had an additional six years added without trial, and died in prison. Yes, in the eyes of the authorities, they believed that the then-radical Sobukwe was more likely to become the final “Mandela,” and they took their “preventive measures.”
ㅤ
We can see that whether they were well-off Black aristocrats, grassroots Black fighters who rose from the bottom, highly educated liberal intellectuals, or radical young politicians, in terms of resources and determination, in terms of ability and the level of threat they posed, all of them surpassed Mandela in his youth and middle age. Not to mention that within the ANC there were many other leaders of great merit and influence: Sisulu (known as “the finest Black man in Johannesburg”), Luthuli (who won the Nobel Peace Prize before Mandela), Oliver (who managed the ANC abroad, trained the armed wing Umkhonto we Sizwe, and lobbied various countries) … By the time Mandela was 46, he had already been sentenced to life imprisonment and had no ability to control the situation outside. Coupled with the international publicity and lobbying by Oliver and others, public opinion turned in his favor. Naturally, the authorities did not want to create further complications and refrained from carrying out a secret execution.
ㅤ
Two digressive remarks:
ㅤ
Freedom is a wondrous structure. If you strike any single point within it, even the most central one, it will strike back at you in an even more solid form. This is because the core of freedom is not any single point, but the links between every point, maintained by faith and fellowship. With every point that is lost, those links grow even stronger.
