國是會議：中華式憲政轉型的典範 ——從台灣轉型經驗看大陸政體結構躍遷可能性 錢 宏（Archer Hong Qian） （Intersubjective Symbiosism Foundation CANADA） 一、ROC台灣國是會議的誕生：從體制危機中開出制度之花 1990年春天，台北的街頭響起了青春的呼聲。野百合學運，源起於對“萬年國會”與不具代表性的憲政體制的全面質疑。學生提出的核心訴求並不激進，而是回歸常識：終止動員戡亂體制、全面改選國會、實現總統直選。這個理性的青年群體，並沒有訴諸暴力革命，也沒有依賴密室權鬥，而是提出了召集“國是會議”的建議，期望以國家名義，共商制度出路。 
ROC台灣的李登輝總統以其政治判斷力，果斷接見學運代表，接受提出“召開國是會議”的核心建議。這一回應不是妥協，而是一場智慧的轉身——他把社會衝突引入制度軌道，使之成為推動憲政躍遷的槓桿。6月28日，第一屆“國是會議”在台北圓山大飯店召開，朝野政黨、學者專家、社會各界與政府代表共聚一堂，圍繞“國會改革”、“中央政府體制”、“兩岸關係”、“地方制度”、“憲政修正”等五大核心議題展開辯論、妥協與協商。 最重要的是：會議並不只是一個象徵性姿態。它真正達成並推動了五項制度性結論——包括廢止《動員戡亂時期臨時條款》、全面修憲、確立總統直選等，並在1991年後陸續完成法定落實。以此為起點，中華民國告別了“准國家”狀態，進入現代憲政國家的穩定軌道。 這一切，發生在沒有革命、沒有外部強迫、沒有大規模暴力衝突的背景下。它展現了中華政治文明中一種被長期壓抑但從未消失的傳統力量：上下左右齊心恊商性的制度躍遷能力。 二、“共定國是”的傳統智慧：從楚莊王到現代憲政 什麼是“國是”？國是一詞，最早源自西漢劉向《新序·雜事二》的君臣對話。劉向記載了春秋時期楚莊王與宰相孫叔敖的一段對話，楚王問孫：“寡人未得所以為國是也。”意為我還不知該怎樣確定“國是”之涵義。孫答：“國是，即國家大計也。其中也含國之大事。臣下我恐怕大王不能定。”楚王又說：“既是這樣，原因是在我還是在臣在呢？”孫曰：“君臣不合，國是無從定矣。夏桀殷紂不定國是……故亡而不知。”楚王最後說：“善哉，願相國與諸侯士大夫共定國是，寡人豈敢以褊國驕民哉。”楚莊王與孫叔敖討論的，不是政策細節，而是如何在上下共識中確立國家正道。孫叔敖指出：“君驕士，士驕君”，將導致君臣不合、上下不信、國家失綱。換言之，國家大政之“是”，絕非君主一人所能獨斷，而需建立在交互主體（Intersubjectivity）的共識基礎上。 這一理念，是公元前8世紀思想家伯陽父“和實生物，同則不繼”存同尊異、交互共生政治哲學的實踐延伸。在現代語境下，它也正是協商民主、憲政協約與政治共識理論的東方表述方式。 ROC台灣“國是會議”的現代設計，正是在這一傳統上注入制度張力：它不只是政黨協商會，也不是群眾鬥爭台，而是政府以現代國家名義開啟的“共識型制度躍遷機制”，是中華傳統政治智慧與起源於1215年《大憲章》運動的現代政治文明之間，一次極為成功的耦合。 三、從Change到Transformation：台灣的“圓山轉身”與全球化3.0 當全球化2.0存在的“互害機制”，被美國45、47任總統川普及其MAGA-MAHA發現而決心加以Transformation時，PRC大陸與世界一起站在了“全球化3.0”的門檻前，台灣早在1990年代已經完成一次內在的Transformation，而非外部壓力下的Change。這一改變的內核，正是1990年召開的國是會議。 值得注意的是，今天，PRC大陸許多改革派仍拘泥於“漸進式Change”的路徑——通過既有體制內部調整單純實現經濟體制改革目標而避諱政治體制改變。然而歷史告訴我們：Change是內循環，Transformation才是範式躍遷。台灣之所以成功跨出“拉美中等收入轉型”陷阱，是因為國是會議從根本上打破了“臨時條款”結構、終結“萬年國會”合法性危機、一步到位確立了“總統直選”的現代政權正當性來源。這是一場“政治-經濟-文化三位一體”的制度轉型，既然避免了暴力革命，也擺脫了特權改革“雙革思維”的歷史循環。 如果中國大陸繼續沉迷於“漸進式改革（Change）”的迷思，而不能及時實現結構性的整體轉型（Transformation），它將無法接住全球化3.0的歷史躍遷窗口期，最終只能在世界秩序的重構中再次付出“出局”的代價——這個“代價”不只是“不惜一切代價”政治話術中的中底層人民，而是包括操控話術的頂層“特權集團”。 必須看到，川普總統歸來的MAGA-MAHA戰略雖有爭議，但其意圖打破全球化2.0的互害格局，是以Transformation為全球化3.0路徑的世界秩序的重構。 ROC台灣的“圓山會議”，就是先一步勇立範式的光輝典範：“從公民運動到制度協商”、“從朝野對立到憲政重組”、“從特權壟斷到制度化競爭”。這種Transformation，不僅成就了台灣民主（不少學者提及台灣民主選舉方式，值得美國再學習）的起點，也為中華文明提供了轉型樣本。 四、大陸的“國是會議”可能嗎？能召集一次生命自組織的大協商嗎？ 36年後，PRC大陸站在另一個臨界點上。 政治上，准“地下黨”體制日益固化為權貴結構；經濟上，“全官尋租化、全民佃戶化”結構正在蠶食改革成果；社會上，公民中產的生命活力與制度僵化之間日益矛盾。這一切構成了系統性躍遷的前夜。 我們必須提出這個根本問題：中國大陸要不要、能不能，也召開一次真正的“國是會議”？ 
2017年11月29日，中國八十年代改革四君子之一朱嘉明到台灣圓山飯店看望全球共生研究院院長錢宏 這不僅是一個技術層面的問題，而是文明動能的試金石。我們是否具備如下的歷史勇氣與制度想象力： 能否跳出黨內民主與密室恊商的死循環？ 能否構建一個真正由各方——政府、企業、公民、學界、基層——參與的多元恊商機制？ 能否讓“國是”之議，不再成為中央指令的包裝或政治姿態，而是真正由交互主體共生力推動？ 能否將憲政改革置於制度正當性的高度，以真正全國代表性會議的形式開啟共識重建？
如果答案是“不能”，那我們將繼續困於“暴力革命”與“特權改革”這兩種“雙革思維”的擺盪中，直到下一次系統崩潰。 如果答案是“能”，那麼國是會議將不僅是制度重構的路徑，更是一次中華文明自身在21世紀的重新出發。 五、未來草圖：大陸式國是會議的制度設計試探 設想一次中國大陸的國是會議，不應止於“政協+人大”式的橡皮圖章拼盤，而應具備如下要素： 1.議題由社會提出，政府組織召集（類似1787年美國“制憲會議”）。 2.類似李登輝政府回應學運提出的五項議題，應設定“憲政結構重組”、“央地關係重構”、“兩岸戰略協定”、“民主黨派自立”、“總書記直選過渡”等核心問題。 3.代表構成多元、多層級透明。 4.包括省級代表、行業協會、公民團體、基層組織、民營企業家、學者專家、網民觀察團等多種形式，體現生命自組織邏輯。 5.不求一次解決所有問題，但國是原則明確（不可更改）一步到位，機制性程序持續化。 6.類似“真普聯”（Alliance for True Democracy）或“圓桌會議”（Polish Round Table Talks）制度設計，形成可持續恊商機制，嵌入國家治理結構。 7.設立“憲政重建辦公室”，推動修憲工程。 8.比照1991年台灣修憲程序，設立法定機制推動體制再設計，終結“臨時革命體制”的無限延續。 結語：從“褊國驕民”到“共定國是”——中華文明的Transformation之路 國是會議，不是台灣的專利，也不是西方舶來制度那麼簡單，而是中華傳統政治文明與世界現代政治文明在當代華人社會“共識型躍遷”智慧轉身。美國獨立後1787年的“制憲會議”奠定了“We the People”的立國之本、ROC台灣1990年也以其“圓山轉身”給出了一種切實可行的路徑。而今輪到PRC大陸做出選擇! Transformation需要勇氣、智慧，更需要生命自組織連接平衡再平衡的交互主體共生活力的覺醒。 
1787年5月25日-9月17日116天的“制憲會議”，主持會議的華盛頓自宣布會議開始至會議結束，自始至終，只說了三句話！ 當中國大陸真正能夠召開一次“由民而啟、由國而行”的國是會議，比如把慶祝抗戰勝利80周年紀念日，用“國是會議”取代高成本的“閱兵式”，那將是中華文明在全世界聚光燈下，正式進入全球化3.0時代最有尊嚴的入場儀式。 寫於2025年7月12日，溫哥華 ——本文節選自《批判與拯救：從暴力革命與特權改革的一根筋死路，走向生命自組織交互共生的憲政躍遷》第三編 第六章 參考文獻： 1、台灣《1990國是會議資料匯編》，行政院研究發展考核委員會（現為國家發展委員會），1990 2、錢宏：《中國：共生崛起》，知識產權出版社，2012.5 3、《美利堅合眾國憲法》原文與制憲會議記錄，中文版中華書局，1990 4、錢宏主編：《全球共生：化解衝突重建世界秩序的中國學派》，晨星出版社，2018 5、劉向（漢）：《新序》，21世紀出版社，2018 6、錢宏：《“鏡”與“燈”：PRC & ROC問題的8個觀察點與8種可能的解決方式（台海時局發展趨勢之我見）》，共生網 http://symbiosism.com.cn/4289.html，2020 7、錢宏（Archer Hong Qian）：《SYMBIOSISM·共生——一種約定創新生活方式的精神力量》，Onebook Press，加拿大，2021 8、錢宏（Archer Hong Qian）：《超越認知偏蔽，適應歷史變局！》，共生網http://symbiosism.com.cn/10216.html；《中國亟需Transformation，而不再是Change！》見萬維讀者網https://blog.creaders.net/user_blog_diary.php?did=NTE2NDU4
National Affairs Conference: A Constitutional Transition Model with Chinese Characteristics— Exploring the Possibility of Structural Transformation in Mainland China Inspired by Taiwan’s ExperienceBy Archer Hong Qian
(Intersubjective Symbiosism Foundation, Canada)
I. The Birth of Taiwan’s National Affairs Conference: A Blossoming of Institutional Reform from Systemic CrisisIn the spring of 1990, youthful cries of change echoed through the streets of Taipei. The Wild Lily student movement originated from a sweeping critique of the "Ten-Thousand-Year Congress" and the unrepresentative constitutional framework. The students' core demands were not radical but rooted in common sense: end the Martial Law-era mobilization system, fully re-elect the legislature, and implement direct presidential elections. This rational, youthful force did not resort to violent revolution or rely on closed-door power struggles. Instead, they proposed convening a "National Affairs Conference"—an institutional dialogue held in the name of the nation to collectively seek systemic solutions. President Lee Teng-hui of the Republic of China (Taiwan) responded decisively with political insight. He received the student representatives and accepted their central proposal for a National Affairs Conference. This was not a concession but a strategic pivot—transforming social conflict into institutional leverage for constitutional change. On June 28, 1990, the first National Affairs Conference was held at the Grand Hotel in Taipei. Political parties, scholars, civil society representatives, and government officials gathered to deliberate, consult, and negotiate across five core topics: legislative reform, central government structure, cross-strait relations, local governance, and constitutional amendments. Most significantly, this conference was not merely symbolic. It produced and implemented five concrete institutional outcomes—including the abolition of the "Temporary Provisions during the Mobilization Period," comprehensive constitutional revisions, and the establishment of direct presidential elections. These reforms were legally enacted in stages starting in 1991. As a result, the Republic of China moved from a quasi-state condition into the stable track of a modern constitutional democracy. All of this occurred without revolution, without external imposition, and without large-scale violent conflict. It demonstrated a deeply rooted but long-suppressed feature of Chinese political civilization: the collective and consultative capacity for systemic transformation.
II. The Traditional Wisdom of "Defining National Affairs Together": From King Zhuang of Chu to Modern ConstitutionalismWhat is “national affairs” (國是)? The term first appeared in the Xin Xu (New Prefaces) by Liu Xiang of the Western Han Dynasty, in a dialogue between King Zhuang of Chu and his prime minister Sun Shuao. The king asked, “I have yet to determine what constitutes ‘national affairs’.” Sun replied, “National affairs refer to matters of state significance. If we cannot agree, they cannot be established. When ruler and ministers are divided, national affairs have no foundation.” The king asked again, “Then whose responsibility is it—mine or the ministers’?” Sun answered, “When rulers scorn their officials, and officials scorn the ruler, harmony is lost. Just like the downfall of Xia and Shang.” The king concluded, “Well said. I hope to define national affairs together with you and the nobles. I dare not arrogantly decide for the nation on my own.” This was not a discussion of policy details, but of how a nation establishes righteous governance through consensus between rulers and people. Sun Shuao’s warning—"If ruler and ministers are not in harmony, national affairs cannot be settled"—emphasized that the governance of great matters cannot be decided by one person alone, but must rest upon a foundation of intersubjective consensus. This concept is a practical extension of the 8th-century BCE political philosophy of Boyang Fu: "Harmony gives birth to vitality; uniformity leads to stagnation." It embodies the values of respecting difference, collaborative coexistence, and intersubjective symbiosis. In modern terms, it aligns with deliberative democracy, constitutional agreements, and theories of political consensus. Taiwan’s National Affairs Conference was a contemporary institutional design rooted in this tradition—not merely a political consultation nor a battlefield of protest, but a “consensus-driven transformation mechanism” initiated in the name of the nation. It represents a successful coupling between Chinese political wisdom and the constitutional civilization that began with the Magna Carta in 1215.
III. From Change to Transformation: Taiwan’s “Yuanshan Turn” and the Era of Globalization 3.0As the “mutual harm mechanism” of Globalization 2.0 became increasingly evident, U.S. Presidents No. 45 and 47 (Donald Trump) recognized its flaws and proposed a fundamental Transformation under the MAGA–MAHA vision. Now, as the world stands on the threshold of Globalization 3.0, mainland China must confront its position. Taiwan, however, had already completed an internal Transformation—not a gradual Change under external pressure, but a paradigm leap initiated from within. The core of this transformation was the National Affairs Conference of 1990. It is worth noting that many reformists in mainland China still cling to the path of “gradual change”—trying to achieve economic reform through adjustments within the existing political structure, while avoiding political restructuring altogether. Yet history tells us: Change is internal circulation; Transformation is a paradigm shift. Taiwan successfully escaped the “Latin American middle-income trap” because the National Affairs Conference fundamentally dismantled the temporary provisions framework, ended the legitimacy crisis of the "Ten-Thousand-Year Congress," and established modern political legitimacy through direct presidential elections. It was a "trinity transformation"—political, economic, and cultural—that avoided both violent revolution and elite-driven privilege reform, breaking free from the dual-revolution mindset that has trapped many societies. If mainland China remains obsessed with the illusion of gradual reform (Change), it will miss the historic window of structural Transformation and may once again be excluded from the reconstruction of the global order in the Globalization 3.0 era. The cost of such exclusion will not only be borne by the “ordinary people” invoked in political slogans—but also by the privileged elite who craft those slogans for their own benefit. President Trump’s return with the MAGA–MAHA strategy, although controversial, represents an attempt to break free from the mutual harm logic of Globalization 2.0 and to reestablish a world order grounded in Transformation. Taiwan’s “Yuanshan Conference” stands as a shining early example of paradigm innovation: from citizen movement to institutional consultation, from partisan confrontation to constitutional reconfiguration, from monopoly of privilege to institutionalized competition. This Transformation not only initiated Taiwan’s democracy (a model some scholars suggest the U.S. should re-learn), but also offered a sample of civilizational transition for the Chinese world.
IV. Is a National Affairs Conference Possible in Mainland China? Can a Self-Organizing Civic Dialogue Be Convened?Thirty-six years later, mainland China stands at another threshold. On the political front, a quasi-underground party structure has hardened into a system of privilege and power. On the economic front, a model of "official rent-seeking and citizen tenantization" is steadily eroding the fruits of reform. Socially, the growing tension between the dynamism of an emergent middle class and rigid political structures signals an imminent turning point. We must confront a fundamental question:
Should—and can—mainland China convene a genuine National Affairs Conference? This is not merely a technical or administrative issue, but a test of civilizational vitality. Do we possess the historical courage and institutional imagination to: Break free from the deadlock of intra-party democracy and backroom deals? Build a truly pluralistic consultative mechanism involving government, business, citizens, academia, and grassroots communities? Enable “national affairs” to be defined not by central commands, but through the dynamic force of intersubjective symbiosis? Elevate constitutional reform to a question of systemic legitimacy, and initiate a truly representative national consensus conference?
If the answer is no, we will remain trapped in the oscillation between violent revolution and privilege-driven reform—until the next systemic collapse. If the answer is yes, then a National Affairs Conference would be not merely a pathway to institutional reconstruction, but a civilizational rebirth of China in the 21st century.
V. A Tentative Blueprint: Institutional Design for a Mainland National Affairs ConferenceA National Affairs Conference in mainland China should not be a hollow mixture of political consultation and rubber-stamp legislative assemblies. Instead, it should include the following features: Agenda initiated by civil society, with the government as the convenor—similar to the U.S. Constitutional Convention of 1787. As with President Lee Teng-hui’s response to student proposals, the conference should address five core issues: restructuring the constitutional framework, redefining central-local relations, establishing strategic cross-strait coordination, enabling democratization of minor political parties, and designing a transitional path toward direct election of the General Secretary. Diverse and transparent representation across all sectors and levels. Inclusion of provincial delegates, industry associations, civic organizations, grassroots groups, private entrepreneurs, scholars, and online citizen observers, reflecting the logic of life’s self-organizing systems. While not every issue must be resolved at once, the national principles must be clearly defined and irreversible, with institutional mechanisms that are sustained and progressive. A deliberative framework, modeled after mechanisms such as the “Alliance for True Democracy” or Poland’s “Round Table,” embedded into the national governance structure. Establishment of a Constitutional Reconstruction Office, tasked with driving the constitutional reform process. Following the example of Taiwan’s 1991 constitutional amendment procedures, a legally defined process should be instituted to redesign state structures and end the indefinite extension of “temporary revolutionary governance.”
Conclusion: From “Ruling Arrogantly Over the Nation” to “Co-Determining National Affairs” — The Road to China’s Civilizational TransformationThe National Affairs Conference is not merely a Taiwanese invention, nor a Western-imported system. It is a contemporary Chinese manifestation of the ancient wisdom of political consensus and institutional self-renewal. It reflects the convergence of Chinese political tradition with modern constitutional civilization. The 1787 U.S. Constitutional Convention laid the foundation of We the People. Taiwan’s 1990 “Yuanshan Turn” offered a practical and successful pathway. Now it is Mainland China’s turn to choose. The 1787 convention, which lasted from May 25 to September 17 for 116 days, was presided over by George Washington—who famously spoke only three times during the entire process. Transformation requires not loud proclamations, but deep courage, profound wisdom, and the awakened vitality of intersubjective symbiosis—the dynamic balance and rebalancing of life’s self-organizing power. If Mainland China were to replace a costly military parade (such as for the 80th anniversary of victory in the War of Resistance) with a National Affairs Conference, that would be the most dignified entrance for Chinese civilization into the era of Globalization 3.0 under the spotlight of the world.
Written on July 12, 2025, in Vancouver
Excerpted from Chapter VI of
Critique and Redemption: From the Dead-End of Violent Revolution and Privileged Reform to the Constitutional Leap of Life’s Self-Organizing Intersubjective Symbiosis References (as cited in Chapter VI)Executive Yuan R&D and Evaluation Commission (Taiwan).
Compilation of the 1990 National Affairs Conference Documents. Taipei: RDEC, 1990.
（行政院研究發展考核委員會：《1990國是會議資料匯編》，台北，1990） Qian, Hong.
China: The Rise of Symbiosis. Beijing: Intellectual Property Publishing House, May 2012.
（錢宏：《中國：共生崛起》，知識產權出版社，2012年5月） The Constitution of the United States and Records of the Constitutional Convention (Chinese edition).
Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1990.
（《美利堅合眾國憲法》原文與制憲會議記錄，中文版，中華書局，1990年） Qian, Hong (ed.).
Global Symbiosis: A Chinese School of Thought for Conflict Resolution and World Order Reconstruction.
Morning Star Press, 2018.
（錢宏主編：《全球共生：化解衝突重建世界秩序的中國學派》，晨星出版社，2018） Liu Xiang (Han Dynasty).
Xin Xu (New Prefaces). Translated edition: 21st Century Press, 2018.
（劉向（漢）：《新序》，21世紀出版社，2018） Qian, Hong.
“The Mirror and the Lamp: Eight Observations and Eight Solutions Regarding PRC & ROC.”
Symbiosism.com.cn, 2020.
http://symbiosism.com.cn/4289.html
（錢宏：《“鏡”與“燈”：PRC & ROC問題的8個觀察點與8種可能的解決方式》，共生網，2020） Qian, Hong (Archer Hong Qian).
SYMBIOSISM: A Spiritual Force for Covenant-Based Innovative Living.
Onebook Press, Canada, 2021.
（錢宏（Archer Hong Qian）：《SYMBIOSISM·共生：一種約定創新生活方式的精神力量》，加拿大Onebook出版社，2021） Qian, Hong (Archer Hong Qian).
“Beyond Cognitive Bias: Adapting to the Historical Shift!”
Symbiosism.com.cn, 2020.
and “China Needs Transformation, Not Mere Change!”
Creaders.net, 2020.
https://blog.creaders.net/user_blog_diary.php?did=NTE2NDU4
（錢宏：《超越認知偏蔽，適應歷史變局！》《中國亟需Transformation，而不再是Change！》）
|
