-->Socialist Constitutional Democracy in the Age of Accountability问责时代的社会主义宪制民主Remarks Prepared for the 10th Annual Conference on "Politics, Law and Public Policy"第十届“政治、法律与公共政策”年会主旨演讲发言稿October 27, 2018 Peking University.2018年10月27日，北京大学Larry Catá Backer白轲It is a great honor to be able to speak with you today here at the beginning of this important Conference on Politics, Law and Public Policy. I am grateful to the conference sponsors which include the Peking University Center for Rule of Law Research, the Peking University Law and Economics Research Center, and the Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences, and Chongqing University, along with special thanks to the Hong Kong Lida Group, and especially to Jiang Shigong, form who I continue to learn much.很荣幸能够参加今年的政治、法律和公共政策年会并在此发言。感谢会议组织方北京大学法治研究中心，北京大学法律经济学研究中心，重庆大学人文科学高等研究院以及香港丽达集团。此外我还要特别感谢一下强世功教授，与他的交往让我获益良多。My brief remarks focus on some of the insights of the conference essay my co-author Miaoqiang Dai and I have circulated for this conference, and which I hope you might have a chance to consider. That essay, entitled Socialist Constitutional Democracy in the Age of Accountability, focuses on the three great themes of the conference; that is the essay digs into central issues of politics, law and public policy for the organization of a political community, and the expression of the principles of that community through its societal, cultural and economic institutions. To do that requires a further refinement of focus. That brings us to the two principle issues facing all institutions with a governance function, irrespective of their form of the political principles under which they are constituted. Those principle issues that define this New Era of politics are democracy and accountability.我本次发言内容主要是跟一篇我和戴苗强合作完成的论文有关，这篇文章已经提交给会议组委分发给各位了，希望各位有时间可以看看。文章标题是“问责时代的社会主义宪制民主”，主要关注了会议的三大主题，即一个政治共同体的政治、法律和公共政策，以及这一共同体的社会、文化、经济机制组成原则及其表现。这一讨论需要我们的思考再深入一步，即看到所有治理机制都会面临的两大原则性问题，无论这些机制建立在何种政治原则基础之上。定义新时代政治的这两大原则问题就是民主和问责。Democracy can be understood as systems grounded in the principle of popular power (from the Greek demos (the people, the collective) plus kratia (power or rule) within constitutional republics (from the Latin res (entity or core, or corpus) plus publicus (of the people). In its essence the problem of democracy has long been understood as the challenge of instituting a stable and positive connection between a political collective and its core.民主（democracy）被理解为是一套宪制共和国内基于大众权利的体系，其词根来自于拉丁词demos（意为人民、集体）加上kratia（意为权利或统治）。另外，共和国（republics）也来自于拉丁词根res（意为主体或核心）加上publicus（即of the people）。从这个意义来讲，民主问题一直以来都被认为是一个讨论如何在政治集体和核心之间建立稳定、有效联系的问题。Democracy was once thought to be expressed in a simple and direct way. Democracy was performed by elections. By the end of the 20th century, the exercise of a vote in free and fair elections was viewed as the central legitimating element of constitutional republics. But what was one to vote for? The answer was usually a representative, who in turn exercised voting power within a smaller political unit on behalf of the people who voted her into office. In exceptional cases, voting could be exercised for changes to the core institutions of the Republic, through plebiscites or other mechanisms. This process located the exercise of democracy outside of the exercise of governance power. Democracy was exogenous to the state and its organs. Of course, popular consultations were permitted but were not built into the system other than as an invitation for those with resources to influence the course of legislation or the formation of policy. In these systems, the governance core is essentially detached from the collective except by standing for election from time to time.民主曾经被认为是以一种简单而直接的方式体现出来的，那就是选举。到20世纪末，自由公正的选举行为被广泛认为是一个宪制国家最为核心的合法性要素。不过票是为何而投呢？答案是选举代表，即投票者通过选出一个人，让其在一个更小的政治集体单位中代表自己行使进一步的投票权。在个别案例里，投票行为还可以通过诸如公民表决这样的机制来改变国家的核心机构。这一过程把民主的实践定位在了治理权力的实践之外。民主对于国家及其机构来说是外生的。当然，公共意见的协商并没有被排除开去，不过这样的协商机制并没有内建于体系之中，相反，这只是对手握资源且足以影响立法和政策的人的一种邀请而已。在这些体系中，除了偶尔参与选举以外，治理的核心（执政）基本上是从集体中剥离开来的。This exogenous system of democratic practice has worked well enough in the West. And it has produced many generations of ever more exquisite theory. To a great extent it accords with the times and the context in which it is practiced. But there are contradictions and challenges as well. The internal contradiction emerges from the rise of the administrative state and the disconnection between those who govern and those who are elected. The external contradiction emerges where elections do not reflect free and fair choice that reflects popular sentiment. And always there is the danger that the individual will forget that she serves as a representative of something greater and democratic theory descends into Western style cults of personality.这种外生的民主实践体系在西方运转得还算不错，还催生了一代又一代极其精细的理论。很大程度上讲，这种实践是建立在特定的时代语境之中的。不过矛盾和挑战依旧存在。其内部矛盾来自于行政国家的崛起以及治理者和被选举者之间的脱钩。外部矛盾的产生则是由于选举已不再反映自由和公正的大众选择。此外，被选代表总是可能忘掉其作为更大集体的代表，民主理论也由此沦落为西方式的“个人崇拜”。Exogenous democracy poses a contradiction for Marxist Leninist systems as well. The relationship between institutional political cores and national collectives must be mediated by a vanguard party. The role of that vanguard is quite precisely defined by reference to the objectives toward which the collective effort must be directed. That direction is set by the vanguard’s core political principles, which form the foundation of the vanguard’s line. The expression of democracy, that is of the power in the community and its relationship to the res understood as the core of the people, is internalized within and through a vanguard absolutely committed to the normative principles on which the state is founded. The performance of voting, and of free form representation in this context loses its potency and purpose. In these systems, the fundamental representation character of the vanguard itself changes the form of its relationship to the collective it serves. The form of that relationship begins to find more effective expression within the role of the vanguard, rather than primarily in the process of selecting representatives among individuals to exercise political authority.外生民主在马克思列宁主义体系中也带来了矛盾。机制化的政治核心和全国的集体之间的关系必须要有一个先锋政党加以协调。先锋政党在此的作用由集体所必须朝之努力的目标定义得清清楚楚，即不断追求作为先锋政党基本路线的核心政治原则。民主的表达，也就是共同体中的权力核心与人民的关系，被内化进了先锋政党内部并且通过这一先锋政党得以实现，该先锋集体需要绝对致力于作为国家基础的规范性原则。在这一语境下选举的操作和代表的自由形成失去了其力量及目标。在这种体系下，先锋本身所拥有的根本代表特征改变了先锋与其所服务的集体之间的关系形式。这表现为在先锋角色内部寻找更有效的表达形式，而不仅仅拘泥于从个体间选出代表这一过程。It follows that in such systems, the essence of the democratic impulse can be effectively expressed endogenously. This is particularly important as an element of developing Leninist theory within systems organized around a vanguard and its institutionalization in a guiding party in power. These are systems in which the connection between the “res” “publicus”, the core of the people, and the demos (the collective) as the residuary basis of power (kratia) is not performed through elections, but rather exercised through structural mechanisms for consultation. In this emerging model, democracy is practiced within the operation of the state institutions, rather than from outside of the institutions of state. It is practiced through the structures and institutions, the mass political organizations, that represent broad sectors of public life. And it is refreshed by the exercise of constant connection to the collective which all of these organs serve. The essence of endogenous democracy is consultation rather than voting. It creates an identity between democracy and accountability which inevitably follows the construction of a political society grounded in the belief in the inexorable progress toward a very specific set of societal goals.在这种体系中，民主的本质可以被说是内生的。这在发展中的列宁主义理论中是十分重要的一个要素，在该理论中，（国家）体系是围绕着先锋和其在执政党指导之下的机制化构建起来的。也就是说，在这类体系中，人民权力的核心（“res”“publicus”）和作为权力基础的人民集体（“demos”）之间的联系并不是通过选举，而是通过一套结构化的协商机制构建起来的。在这一新兴的模式中，民主是在国家机构运转之中，而非之外，得以实践的，是通过代表广泛公共生活的结构和机制、群众政治组织实践的。国家机构与被服务的集体之间常态化的联系也不断更新着民主的运作机理。内生式民主的精髓在于协商而非投票。内生式民主将民主和问责等同起来，这在构建一个基于追求一套特定社会目标的政治社会的过程中是不可避免的。From Cuba to China, one can see the emergence of a greater attention to the development of this essence of Leninist collectivity. These states are seeking, within their local context, to better align the relationship between core and collective. That alignment is predicated on consultation. But it is consultation framed within the constraints of the fundamental principles on which the state is founded. And to ensure the respect of those constraints the ultimate mediation—the leadership of a committed vanguard—is necessary. And, indeed, from out of that kernel of a fundamental relationship, one between the core and the collective—China has built a complex and comprehensive political and administrative machinery deeply embedded within cultures of consultation. Even as I speak here today, for example, the Cuban Communist Party and its state apparatus has been involved in a comprehensive initiative of nationwide consultations receiving popular reactions to the changes to its national constitution that reflect the changes to the basic political, social and economic model, overseen by the Cuban Communist Party at its 7th Congress in 2016. That process of national consultation, follows an earlier and more targeted consultation respecting the development of the new conceptual political model under the guidance of the PCC in 2016, and an even earlier national and quite public consultation as the Communist arty developed its own program of reform and opening up producing a complex set of Guidelines adopted by the 6th PCC Congress in 2011.从古巴到中国，我们可以看到发展列宁主义集体概念中的这一基本民主原则越来越引起重视。这些国家正在他们各自的语境之中探索如何更好地将核心与集体联系起来，其主要方式就是协商。不过协商也是受限于国家构建的基本原则框架之中的。为了保证这些限制得到尊重，一个忠诚先锋政党的领导是必要的。此外，中国已经从核心与集体这一根本关系的内核中发展出了一套复杂、全面并深深内嵌于协商文化的政治与行政机器。而就在我在此演讲的现在，古巴共产党和古巴国家机器也开始了一场全面的、全国范围的协商倡议。为了与政治、社会和经济变化相适应，古巴共产党和其2016年产生的第七届全国代表大会正在为修改宪法征求公众意见。为了发展一套新的概念化的政治模式，古巴共产党在2016年也发起了一场目标十分明确的协商运动，当前正在进行的全国性的宪法修改协商与其一脉相承。更早的协商活动还有2011年古巴共产党在为古巴的改革开放规划一套指导原则时发起的全国性公开协商。But the development of interlocking and complex systems of consultation and collective action, of coordination between cores and collective at every level of political, social, and economic life, has seen a greater development in China. Our paper speaks if only briefly to the complex complexity of endogenous democratic activity. On the one hand it looks within the vanguard party and its structures and the effective functioning of intra-party democracy. The paper considers the development of recent theory and application of this principle in the evolution of the Party’s working style. On the other hand, the paper also considers the way that systems of inter-institutional consultation have been developed in the New Era, looking especially at the work of the United Front Parties and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC).不过中国显然在复杂协商体系和集体行动间的交错发展以及在各级政治、社会、经济生活中核心与集体之间的协调等方面走在了前面。我们的论文粗浅地讨论了这种内生式民主活动的复杂性质。一方面，我们考察了先锋政党的内部结构以及其党内民主有效运作的方式。文章讨论了新近的理论发展和这一发展如何影响了党的工作方式演进。另一方面，文章也讨论了跨机构的协商是如何在新时代发展的，特别是关注了爱国统一战线民主党派的角色以及人民政协系统。But endogenous democracy also poses its own challenges. Those center of the effectiveness of consultation and the vigor of the mediating role of the core and its responsiveness to the collective within the principled framework of the basic political line. It reminds the theorist of the challenges of corruption in systems that require fallible individuals to manage systems founded on the hopes of perfectibility. That challenge brings to the foreground the second great issue of New Era—the issue of accountability.不过内生式民主也有其挑战。这些挑战主要来自于协商的有效性和核心与集体之间的互动，主要指核心如何在其基本政治路线的框架内对集体进行有效回应。此外，我们还需要关注体系内的腐败所带来的挑战，尽管我们总期待着机制完美地运转，但这在一个由肉体凡胎所构建并管理的系统中几乎是不可避免的。这一挑战也把我们的目光引向了新时代的第二大重要议题，问责。Internal accountability structures include the principles of democratic centralism, of the core and collective, and of consultation within the CPC itself. It also includes disciplinary measures that have become quite potent in the apparatus of disciplinary inspection. The development of the Guiding Principles for Intra-party Political Life under New Situation announced at the 6th Plenary of 18th Central Committee of CPC in 2016 suggests the New Era structures of intra-party consultation and accountability spanning from the party’s congress system to intra-party supervision system and consultation mechanisms.对内的问责结构包括民主集中制的原则，核心与集体的关系以及中国共产党党内的协商。强大的纪律检查机构负责的纪检措施也包含其中。2016年十八大六中全会通过的《关于新形势下党内政治生活的若干准则》表现了新时代党内协商和问责结构的发展与完善，这一结构涵盖了从党的代表大会到党内监督协商体系的广泛机制。External accountability mechanisms include the mandatory axis between CPC and people—the mass line. The mass line takes the logic of the core-collective principle of governance and exports it to the relationship between party and people. The fundamental principle of the mass line applies thoroughly to every level of the party’s leadership in every sector ranging from the party apparatus itself to the state apparatus and other entities such as businesses and civil organizations. The Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) is one of the most important places where the axis of mass line functions as the external accountability mechanism for the party’s leadership. CPPCC has been playing the role since 1949 when the first conference laid the foundation of the People’s Republic.对外问责机制包括党和人民之间的强制性联系，即群众路线。群众路线与治理的核心-集体原则逻辑一脉相承，并且将这一逻辑外化到了党与人民的关系上。群众路线的根本原则被全面地应用到了党在各级、各领域（包括国家、党本身以及企业甚至公民组织）的领导。中国人民政治协商会议是群众路线作为一个纽带使党的领导接受党外问责的最重要机制。自从1949年拉开新中国时代序幕的第一次会议以来，政协就始终扮演着这样的角色。The essence of the move toward consultative, that is socialist, democracy in China, was declared in the 19th CPC Congress Report. The 19th CPC Report groups the evolution and consolidation of consultative socialist democracy within six broad categories. The essay discusses the character of these six categories in more detail. These emphasize both the strong consultative aspects of the system and the even stronger connection between consultation and accountability. What is the essence of consultative democracy? The 19th CPC Congress Report explains that “The essence of the people's democracy is that the people get to discuss their own affairs.” But that process of consultation must be managed. And that management of popular expression is built around the mass organizations which serve to mediate between the raw and undiluted expression of popular opinion and the effective representation of that opinion for consumption by the political vanguard.十九大报告宣告了中国将向社会主义协商民主大步前进。十九大报告将社会主义协商民主的演进和发展归入了六点来阐述。我们的文章分别讨论了这六点的特性，它们强调了协商在整个体系运作中的重要性，并且还把协商与问责更加紧密地联系在了一起。什么是协商民主的精髓？十九大报告解释道“有事好商量，众人的事情由众人商量，是人民民主的真谛”。 不过商量的过程是一定要有所管理的。这种对于大众意见表达的管理通过在来自群众的组织中把离散的、未经加工的大众意见“原材料”凝练成为了有效的民意，并且反馈给政治先锋以供考量。This is the core of the notion of endogenous democracy. What Chinese efforts demonstrate, at least preliminarily and in theoretical form, is that endogenous democracy is substantially compatible with Leninist state organization. But it may be worth considering whether the accountability principles at the base of endogenous democratic theory might also find expression in Western systems as well.这就是内生式民主概念的要义。在中国的这一发展至少从理论层面初步证明了内生式民主是与列宁主义国家组织高度兼容的，不过我们可能也需要思考下作为内生式民主理论基础的问责原则是否也能够融入西方体系中。
Tuesday, October 30, 2018
问责时代的社会主义宪制民主 第十届“政治、法律与公共政策”年会主旨演讲发言稿 2018年10月27日，北京大学 Bilingual Version of Remarks Prepared for the 10th Annual Conference on "Politics, Law and Public Policy"
(Pix © Larry Catá Backer 2017)
For the 10th Annual Conference on "Politics, Law and Public Policy" (第十届“政治、法律与公共政策”年会) (more on that event HERE) held at Peking University last week, my co-author, Miaoqiang Dai and I presented our essay 问责时代的社会主义宪制民主 (白轲 戴苗强 翻译：戴苗强)--Socialist Constitutional Democracy in the Age of Accountability. The essay may be accessed HERE and downloaded HERE.
In connection with that presentation I delivered the following remarks in English with Chinese translation. I earlier posted the pre-delivery remarks in English. This post includes the English version and the 中国语言版本 of those remarks as delivered, which both appear below.
The focus is on the development of a political theory of democracy that does not center popular elections at its core. This is a difficult, if not taboo subject, under the political cultural conditions of Western liberal democracies (with respect to which a theory of endogenous democracy, especially one relevant to Marxist Leninist state systems) has no quarrel. And yet it might prove interesting to consider its implications within Western systems that have evolved well past the structures that made theories that privilege the exogenous of democracy so potent in West Western political culture.