Evolving Leninism in the Chinese Communist Party?: Reforming Mechanisms for Intra-Party Discipline

(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2015)

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been moving more aggressively against corruption within the Party and among officials. That effort has been greeting with substantial popular support (see here and here), but also generated some criticism (see here and here). 

The efforts at disciplining CCP members has followed a traditional form, substantially unchanged from its historical roots in the practices of European Marxist Leninist Parties.  But change has been coming to the CCP. And it appears that some of these changes are structural. The structures of reform, though, have been showing signs of potentially profound change for some time, representing a dynamic evolution of the Leninist model.  See Backer, Larry Catá and Wang, Keren, The Emerging Structures of Socialist Constitutionalism with Chinese Characteristics: Extra Judicial Detention (Laojiao and Shuanggui) and the Chinese Constitutional Order,  Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal 23(2):251-341 (2014).

Recently the CCP announced a reorganization of the institutional structures of CCP discipline--moving from a hierarchical model to one in which the institutional hierarchy of the disciplinary apparatus appears to have become more autonomous and detached from the core structures of CCP hierarchy. 

This post considers the implications of this change for the evolution of the Leninist character of the CCP and its efforts to re-frame the structures of its vanguard role to better respond to Chinese conditions. 

Official CCP organs recently reported on a major change to the administrative and power structures of the CCP relating to the structures for disciplining CCP members:

BEIJING, March 31 (Xinhua) -- The Communist Party of China's (CPC's) disciplinary watchdog has established resident offices in four CPC central organs for the first time, it announced on Tuesday.

Leading resident supervisors have taken office in the CPC Central Committee's General Office, Organization Department, Publicity Department and United Front Work Department.

Similar branches were also set up in the country's top legislature, top political advisory body and the General Office of the State Council, or the cabinet, according to a statement issued by the CPC Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI).

The move followed a decision made by the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee in December to establish CCDI resident disciplinary offices in more central CPC and government organs.

Such offices have already been established in more than 50 central government organs. And the CCDI plans to set up offices for all central Party and government organs, the number of which is about 140.

These offices will focus on supervision, being responsible for disciplinary inspections, pressing implementation of party discipline and tracing accountability.

Hailing the move as innovative in the anti-corruption cause, Tuesday's statement said setting up more offices is an important step to strictly governing the Party.

It said the new offices will be fully completed in three months.

In recent years, inspectors have uncovered scores of graft cases in central CPC and government authorities.  

 On the one hand, and certainly from the traditionalist perspectives of European Leninism, this appears to be an innovation that raises questions about its compatibility with Leninist theory. It might be possible to argue that this represents a move away from the traditional organization of the CCP, grounded in a pyramidal structure with each superior level of the CCP supervising its next inferior level. That organization would include the placement of the disciplinary committees as integral parts of each level of CCP organization. By detaching the disciplinary committees from local and regional CCP organizations, these organs become autonomous of the organizational level at which they exist.  The integrity of singular CCP hierarchy is thus fractured with the development of a parallel hierarchy of disciplinary committees alongside conventional CCP organs.

The Constitution of the CCP provides a first layer of analysis (relevant portions reproduced below).  Article 37 announces the objectives of CCP discipline, to "guarantee that the unity and solidarity of the Party are safeguarded and that the tasks of the Party are accomplished."  It does speak to CCP unity along Leninist lines, but does not of itself suggest the means by which the disciplinary function itself is organized to that end. Article 38, on the other hand, appears to do just that, speaking to the role of CCP organizations to "criticize, educate or take disciplinary measures." Yet article 38 does not purport to constrain the organizational form within which CCP discipline is to take place, and indeed it contemplates a multi-institutional and multi-systemic approach to discipline, grounded in the facts and circumstances of a particular case.  Article 40, though might at first reading appear to support the argument of Leninist deviation in the new system.  It provides, in relevant part:

Article 40. Any disciplinary measure to be taken against a Party member must be discussed and decided on at a general membership meeting of the Party branch concerned, and reported to the primary Party committee concerned for approval. If the case is relatively important or complicated, or involves the expulsion of a member, it shall be reported to a Party commission for discipline inspection at or above the county level for examination and approval, in accordance with the specific situation. Under special circumstances, a Party committee or a commission for discipline inspection at or above the county level has the authority to decide directly on disciplinary measures to be taken against a Party member.

 Yet a closer reading suggests a more open textured rule.  It suggests that at the lower levels of CCP organization, discipline ought to be a communal affair, subject to guidance.  The rule hard wires the Leninist commonplace that CCP discipline is part of the ideological work of the vanguard party, that is as instruction and rectification so that the group can move forward more effectively. For these "ordinary course" disciplines the disciplining group serves to do engage in appropriate corrective education (cf. Article 42). 

Only two circumstances merit a more formal procedure.  The first concerns "not-in-the-ordinary-course."  And the second involves "special circumstances." With respect to the first, discipline is under the jurisdiction of the CCP commission for discipline.  But Article 40 provides leeway about which committee would be seized with the matter.  With respect to the second, a committee detached from the CCP organization in which the matter arose may deal directly with the matter.  Taken together, it suggests that while ordinary course discipline ought to remain the duty of the CCP organization in which it arises, non-ordinary-course matters are meant to be submitted to a disciplinary committee, but the circumstances dictate the level at which review is to be had. What emerges clearly is that the discipline committees are considered separate, and to some extent, autonomous, authorities.  And more importantly, article 40 does not suggest a mandatory institutional organization of the disciplinary committees within the CCP hierarchies. This reading is reinforced by Article 42, which treats the discipline of CCP organizations.  The pattern is traditionally Leninist--the next higher committee organization investigates and the organization above that decides. It suggests but does not mandate the creation of mechanisms within these levels for discipline.  Nor does it prohibit the creation of an integrated vertically organized system of discipline committees autonomous of the CCP levels in which it is embedded.

This reading of the CCP constitution suggests the possibility of fracture.  It makes clear that a decision to organize discipline within its own silo in parallel to corresponding CCP organizations is compatible with the organization of discipline within the CCP constitution.  But is it ideologically consistent with Chinese Marxist Leninist principles? Here again, the answer may be yes. First, the CCP rejects mere traditionalism, or orginalism, as a constraint on the development of either Marxism Leninism theory or its application to the CCP's work:

 The Party's ideological line is to proceed from reality in handling all matters, to integrate theory with practice, to seek truth from facts, and to verify and develop the truth through practice. All Party members must adhere to this ideological line, explore new ways, boldly experiment with new methods, go in for innovation, work creatively, constantly study new situations, review new experience and solve new problems, enrich and develop Marxism in practice, and advance the endeavor to adapt Marxism to Chinese conditions. (CCP Constitution General Program).

Second, the General Program stresses the need to approach discipline respecting corruption in a comprehensive way. The General Program provides: "The Party will establish a sound system for punishing and preventing corruption by fighting it in a comprehensive way, addressing both its symptoms and root cause and combining punishment with prevention, with the emphasis on prevention. The Party will persistently oppose corruption and step up efforts to improve its style of work and uphold integrity." This suggests, in tandem with the basic line of the CCP, thatorganizational objectives might well drive Leninist innovation, and that the CCP is not tied to old ways, as long as its approaches stay true to the basic line of the CCP. Indeed, the expression of democratyc centralism stresses "The sense of organization and discipline must be strengthened, and all members are equal before Party discipline." Lastly, this structuring of discipline is consist with trends in the theories of collective action that have been advanced in recent years. (Backer, Larry Catá, Crafting a Theory of Socialist Democracy for China in the 21st Century: Considering Hu Angang's (胡鞍钢) Theory of Collective Presidency in the Context of the Emerging Chinese Constitutional State 16(1) Asian-Pacific Law and Policy Journal – (forthcoming ). 

______

Chapter VII

Party Discipline

Article 37. Party discipline refers to the rules of conduct that must be observed by Party organizations at all levels and by all Party members. It is the guarantee that the unity and solidarity of the Party are safeguarded and that the tasks of the Party are accomplished. Party organizations must strictly observe and maintain Party discipline. A Communist Party member must conscientiously act within the bounds of Party discipline, providing that "any offending organization or individual must be dealt with according to Party discipline and the laws of the state." Thus, while the Leninist objectives of CCP solidarity and unity are paramount, the institutional forms through which such solidarity is policed is not specified.

Article 38. Party organizations should criticize, educate or take disciplinary measures against members who violate Party discipline, depending on the nature and seriousness of their mistakes and in the spirit of "learning from past mistakes to avoid future ones, and curing the sickness to save the patient."

Party members who have seriously violated the criminal law shall be expelled from the Party.

It is strictly forbidden in the Party to take any measures against a member that contravene the Party Constitution or the laws of the state, or to retaliate against or frame a member. Any offending organization or individual must be dealt with according to Party discipline and the laws of the state.

Article 39. There are five measures for enforcing Party discipline: warning, serious warning, removal from Party posts, probation within the Party, and expulsion from the Party.

The period for which a Party member is placed on probation shall not exceed two years. During that period, the Party member concerned has no right to participate in voting or elections or stand for election. A Party member who during that time truly rectifies his or her mistake shall have his or her rights as a Party member restored. Party members who refuse to mend their ways shall be expelled from the Party.

Expulsion is the ultimate Party disciplinary measure. In deciding on or approving an expulsion, Party organizations at all levels should study all the relevant facts and opinions and exercise extreme caution.

Article 40. Any disciplinary measure to be taken against a Party member must be discussed and decided on at a general membership meeting of the Party branch concerned, and reported to the primary Party committee concerned for approval. If the case is relatively important or complicated, or involves the expulsion of a member, it shall be reported to a Party commission for discipline inspection at or above the county level for examination and approval, in accordance with the specific situation. Under special circumstances, a Party committee or a commission for discipline inspection at or above the county level has the authority to decide directly on disciplinary measures to be taken against a Party member.

Any decision to remove a member or alternate member of the Central Committee or a local committee at any level from his or her posts within the Party, to place such a person on probation within the Party or to expel such a person from the Party must be approved by a two thirds majority vote at a plenary meeting of the Party committee to which he or she belongs. In special circumstances, the decision may be taken first by the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee or the standing committee of a local Party committee, pending confirmation at the plenary meeting of the Party committee. Such a disciplinary measure against a member or alternate member of a local Party committee is subject to approval by the higher Party committee.

A member or alternate member of the Central Committee who has seriously violated the criminal law shall be expelled from the Party on decision by the Political Bureau of the Central Committee; a member or alternate member of a local Party committee who has seriously violated the criminal law shall be expelled from the Party on decision by the standing committee of the Party committee at the corresponding level.

Article 41. When a Party organization is deciding on a disciplinary measure against a Party member, it should investigate and verify the facts in an objective way. The Party member in question must be informed of a decision regarding any disciplinary measure to be taken and of the facts on which it is based. The person concerned must be given a chance to account for himself or herself and speak in his or her own defense. If the member does not accept the decision, he or she can appeal, and the Party organization concerned must promptly deal with or forward his or her appeal, and must not withhold or suppress it. Those who cling to erroneous views and unjustifiable demands shall be educated by criticism.

Article 42. If a Party organization fails to uphold Party discipline, it must be investigated.

In case a Party organization seriously violates Party discipline and is unable to rectify the mistake on its own, the next higher Party committee should, after verifying the facts and considering the seriousness of the case, decide on the reorganization or dissolution of the organization, report the decision to the Party committee at the next higher level for examination and approval, and then formally announce and carry out the decision.