 |
| Pix Credit Beijing Review |
I take this opportunity to post for comment a discussion draft recently completed. The essay, Linking People to Governing Institutions Through Leninist Political Parties: 全过程民主 (Whole Process Democracy), Socialist Consultative Democracy, and 《中国新型政党制度》 (China's New Political Party System)," considers the development of a socialist theory of political parties within the an already quite important development of a Chinese Leninist theory of 'whole process democracy.' The embedding of the role of political parties within Leninist democratic theory sits at the nexus point of vanguard party theory, of the nature and role of representation within Leninist systems, of the relationship between endogenous (consultative) and exogenous (elections facilitated) forms of democratic expression, and most pointedly, of the differences between Leninist and liberal democratic forms of popular governance. The abstract provides some detail of the focus of the examination:
The role of political parties in the Chinese democratic socialist political order has always been deeply misunderstood, even within Chinese academic and popular circles. The misunderstanding at a macro level is likely a product of great ideological battles of the last century between liberal democratic and Marxist Leninist approaches to the organization of states, the positioning of political authority and its exercise through political parties--mass collectives developed for that purpose. These organizational differences reflect an even deeper conceptual gap between the way that these ideologies construct and apply the notion of party within their democratic imaginaries. Though both systems use the same word to describe collective political organization—the ideological basis of the meaning of that term could not produce a greater distance in the way in which meaning is embedded in those terms. This study takes a deeper dive into the current elaboration of the political theory of Chinese socialist constitutional democracy, the role of political parties within it, and the connection between the people and both. To those ends, the study focuses on three key documents produced by the Chinese State Council: (1) 《中国新型政党制度》 (China's New Political Party System; 25 June 2021); (2) : 中国的民主 (China: Democracy That Works; 4 December 2021); and (3) [美国民主情况] (The State of Democracy in the United States; 5 December 2021). Through the lens of these contemporary elaborations of Chinese Marxist-Leninist theory, the study considers the hypothesis: ‘the emerging theory of Leninist political parties contributes to the development of a coherent theory of endogenous socialist constitutional democracy.’ It’s subsidiary hypothesis is that at least conceptually, the transformation of the ‘mass line’ principle into ‘whole process democracy’ provides a basis within Leninist political theory to link the people to their state institutions through the structuring of a system of well managed mass political organizations under the leadership of the vanguard.
Pix Credit here
 |
| Pix credit here |
In the process of this examination, I hope to engage the following questions: (1) What are differences between exogenous and endogenous democratic constitutional orders? ; (2) What is the theoretical roles of parties within each linking people to governing institutions? ; (3) How does a Leninist conception of party fix into this framework; what are the differences and relation between a vanguard party and other political mass organizations?; (4) How does Leninist party system fit within conception of consultative democracy?; (5) The role of elections in endogenous democratic systems and the utility of the ‘mass line’ principle in connecting people to political organs; (6) Potential and challenges for Leninist party frameworks and constitutional consultative democracy frameworks in the operation of endogenous democratic systems; (7) implications and value for other (Asian) political systems especially in developing states.
The object of the essay is not to engage in political work. There is no aim to convince anyone of the superiority or value or legitimacy of one or another system. I do, however, examine the coherence of the conceptual basis of the system (especially here relating to the role of political parties) as a function of the core animating principles around which the overall political-economic model is structured. To that end it is worth carefully considering the extent to which Chinese theory now suggests a coherent and well integrated conceptual basis, within the "life world" (rationalizing complex of foundational principles) of Leninism, of the role of political parties and of the system within which they operate. In the process it is also worth considering the potential extent to which that theory may prove both influential (abroad) and legitimating (within China). The focus is entirely theoretical--that is the study focuses on the development of the theoretical basis for political parties and whole process democracy. The great spaces between the ideal and its realization (like that gap within liberal democratic systems) is left for another time.
The Abstract and Introduction follow. The paper may be accessed and downloaded through SSRN HERE.
Linking People to Governing Institutions Through Leninist Political Parties: 全过程民主 (Whole Process Democracy), Socialist Consultative Democracy, and 《中国新型政党制度》 (China's New Political Party System)
DISCUSSION DRAFT
Larry Catá Backer (白 轲)
W. Richard and Mary Eshelman Faculty Scholar Professor of Law and International Affairs; University Ombudsperson; Pennsylvania State University | 239 Lewis Katz Building, University Park, PA 16802 1.814.863.3640 (direct) || lcb11@psu.edu
Hypothesis: The emerging theory of Leninist political parties contributes to the development of a coherent theory of endogenous socialist constitutional democracy
Preliminary Research Questions:
(1) What are differences between exogenous and endogenous democratic constitutional orders?
(2) What is the theoretical roles of parties within each linking people to governing institutions?
(3) How does a Leninist conception of party fix into this framework; what are the differences and relation between a vanguard party and other political mass organizations?
(4) How does Leninist party system fit within conception of consultative democracy?
(5) The role of elections in endogenous democratic systems and the utility of the ‘mass line’ principle in connecting people to political organs
(6) Potential and challenges for Leninist party frameworks and constitutional consultative democracy frameworks in the operation of endogenous democratic systems
(7) implications and value for other (Asian) political systems especially in developing states.
Abstract: The role of political parties in the Chinese democratic socialist political order has always been deeply misunderstood, even within Chinese academic and popular circles. The misunderstanding at a macro level is likely a product of great ideological battles of the last century between liberal democratic and Marxist Leninist approaches to the organization of states, the positioning of political authority and its exercise through political parties--mass collectives developed for that purpose. These organizational differences reflect an even deeper conceptual gap between the way that these ideologies construct and apply the notion of party within their democratic imaginaries. Though both systems use the same word to describe collective political organization—the ideological basis of the meaning of that term could not produce a greater distance in the way in which meaning is embedded in those terms. This study takes a deeper dive into the current elaboration of the political theory of Chinese socialist constitutional democracy, the role of political parties within it, and the connection between the people and both. To those ends, the study focuses on three key documents produced by the Chinese State Council: (1) 《中国新型政党制度》 (China's New Political Party System; 25 June 2021); (2) : 中国的民主 (China: Democracy That Works; 4 December 2021); and (3) [美国民主情况] (The State of Democracy in the United States; 5 December 2021). Through the lens of these contemporary elaborations of Chinese Marxist-Leninist theory, the study considers the hypothesis: ‘the emerging theory of Leninist political parties contributes to the development of a coherent theory of endogenous socialist constitutional democracy.’ It’s subsidiary hypothesis is that at least conceptually, the transformation of the ‘mass line’ principle into ‘whole process democracy’ provides a basis within Leninist political theory to link the people to their state institutions through the structuring of a system of well managed mass political organizations under the leadership of the vanguard.
__________
A person who aims to enhance his power and capacity reaches afar to draw talents close to him. . . As for those who cannot be captivated with words . . ., invite them and encumber them with responsibilities. Or encumber them with responsibilities first and then reveal their weaknesses; or reveal their weaknesses first and then encumber them with responsibilities.[1]
1. Introduction
The role of political parties in the Chinese democratic socialist political order has always been deeply misunderstood, even within Chinese academic and popular circles. The misunderstanding at a macro level is likely a product of great ideological battles of the last century between liberal democratic and Marxist Leninist approaches to the organization of states, the siting of political authority and its exercise through political parties--mass collectives developed for that purpose. These organizational differences reflect an even deeper conceptual gap between the way that these ideologies construct and apply the notion of party within their democratic imaginaries. Liberal democratic constitutionalism and the role of the political party within it, is understood as expressions of the core principles of exogenous democracy. Marxist Leninist constitutionalism and the role of its political mass organizations—the vanguard and other mass political organizations--are understood as expressions of endogenous democracy. At its core, then, the differences between liberal democratic and Marxist Leninist democratic impulses are expressed through the organization and operation of their “party” system. Political parties exist within liberal democracy organized through a government apparatus; the vanguard party, as the leadership core of organized political authority, exists as the organization of political authority itself, then administered through state organs. Though both systems use the same word to describe collective political organization—the ideological basis of the meaning of that term could not produce a greater distance in the way in which meaning is embedded in those terms.
Reflecting both individual autonomy and markets oriented values, in liberal democratic states, such mass collectives are organized to compete in the ‘marketplace of ideas’ for affirmation performed in the context of elections for positions within a governmental apparatus through which such political authority as might there be exercised has been ordered under the provisions of a ‘constituting’ document(s). In liberal democratic states the activities of political parties describe the “chaff” of a system in which political parties exist only as a function of the “underlying consensus on policy that usually exists in the society [without which] no democratic system would long survive the endless irritations and frustrations of elections and party competition.”[2] (Dahl 1956, 132). In contrast, and reflecting both collectivist and core objectives oriented values in Marxist Leninist states, such mass collectives must be ordered in relation to and subject to the guidance of the leading social forces of society. Those leading forces are themselves necessarily organized vanguard collectives not just for the exercise of authority undertaking the role of producing and directing the underlying consensus on policy that markets for social consensus play in liberal democracy. Starting as a revolutionary force,[3] the core objective of which is to sweep away the vestiges of a receding historical stage of national development, these collectives as then organized as a cluster of highly networked mass organization s around the institutional core which is the revolutionary party now transformed into the core of leadership of the nation. It is through that fundamental organizational structure—mass collectives and leadership cores with the Communist Party at the center,--through which the constitutional and democratic order of society may be realized.
These organizational differences reflect an even deeper conceptual gap between the two approaches. Liberal democratic constitutionalism and the role of the political party within it, is understood as expressions of the core principles of exogenous democracy. Marxist Leninist constitutionalism and the role of its political mass organizations--the vanguard and other mass political organizations--are understood as expressions of endogenous democracy. Exogenous democracy is expressed through election of representatives (individuals) who exercise all political authority delegated to the state apparatus as memorialized in its (usually written) constitution. Endogenous democracy is expressed through the development of effective networks of consultation in the development and implementation of public policy under the guidance of the vanguard (Communist) party as the platform mass collective within which all political authority (and responsibility) is vested. The result is that the role of political parties is fundamentally different. In liberal democratic orders political parties link serve as the direct link between the people and government through the mechanism of markets based competition for the election of their representatives to government office. In Marxist Leninist States political parties, as mass organizations, link the people to the institutions of state in two distinct ways. The apex political mass organization--the vanguard party--swerves as the repository of political authority and the guardian of the objectives for state policy reflected in the fundamental ideology of Marxist-Leninism. Other mass political organizations, denominated parties must also serve those ends under the guidance and leadership of the vanguard party. Both are responsible for the development of that ideology and its expression as public policy and orderly rule in support of the core objectives as these change through the historical eras of development that lead to the final objective, the establishment of a communist society in the nation. To those ends both serves as the conduit through which the people are directly linked to state organs. But that link is undertaken through consultation rather than through election.
While liberal democratic states, then, must vigilantly guard and protect the integrity of its election processes, its political parties are charged with maintaining collective soft discipline on its members who through election are charged with infusing their decision making and participating in the operations of the state from the perspective of the basic lines or political programs of their parties.[4] Ideology and implementation are both subject to intense debate and change with each election cycle. Marxist Leninist states, on the other hand, vigilantly protect the integrity of its ideological system through the mechanisms of vanguard party leadership, and its political parties, including the vanguard, are charged with the task of ensuring a strong connection between its application of the contemporary expression of that ideology in law and policy reflects the current conditions. The two approaches are at some level fundamentally incompatible. And much of what passes for comparative study or engagement has focused on the ways that each system fails a ‘legitimacy test’ based on the core operational principles of the other. These efforts intertwine the two key features of each system--the fundamental role of popular participation in government, and the role of political parties in furthering or managing that participation.
Only recently has China has entered into these debates. Internally the debates reflected the great conceptual battles between traditional liberal democratic and emerging Chinese Marxist-Leninism emerging after the start of the era of Reform and Opening Up. That debate internalized the larger discussions about political organizations within national systems—including the role of the Communist Party as it transitioned form revolutionary vanguard to the party in power.[5] At the same time it sought to naturalize that larger global discussion within the Chinese political economic model—that is to give the discussion authentic Chinese characteristics. By the end of the era of Reform and Opening Up around 2015, that undertaking had produced a very large scope of theory within Chinese Leninism about which much has been written. The theory of political parties, then, is bound up intimately with the development of theories of Socialist Democracy in China. Both are bound up, in turn, with the theorization of legitimacy enhancing[6] collective consultation through representative mass organizations structured institutionally in consultative organs under the leadership of the apex Communist Party of China (CPC). These efforts to develop a theory of political parties within a representative consultation based theory of Socialist Democracy varies substantially from other Marxist-Leninist approaches.[7]
This study takes a deep dive in the current elaboration of the political theory of Chinese socialist constitutional democracy, the role of political parties within it, and the connection between the people and both. Certainly since the start of the leadership of Xi Jinping, and accelerating after the commencement of the Chinese Leninist New Era of historical development, the Chinese vanguard’s core of leadership has sought to engage with and to elaborate a comprehensive and self-reflexive theory of endogenous constitutional democracy with the vanguard party at its core, the political mass organizations playing a key role, that rationalizes what is now known as ‘whole process democracy.’ At the core of these efforts is the attempt to rationalize within the framework of democratic action through political parties the direct link between the people and state organs. More decisively, the elaboration seeks to transform Maoist Leninism from the revolutionary period and the insights of the principles of the Reform and Opening Up period, and refashion them in the language of democracy, popular participation and political parties as mediating-leadership organs as 全过程民主 (Whole Process Democracy).
To those ends, the study focuses on three key documents distributed by the Chinese State Council at the end of 2021. Each contributes to is meant to be a coherent and comprehensive theory of Socialist democracy particularly embedded within Chinese Marxist-Leninist principles. One, 《中国新型政党制度》 (China's New Political Party System),[8] sketched out the current structures of the Chinese system of multi-party cooperation and political consultation under the leadership of the apex vanguard (Communist) party. Another, (中国的民主 (China: Democracy That Works)[9] elaborates a theory and discourse of “whole process people’s democracy” [全过程人民民主]. The last, 美国民主情况 [The State of Democracy in the United States]; 5 December 2021),[10] “aims to expose the deficiencies and abuse of democracy in the US as well as the harm of its exporting such democracy.”[11] Taken together, the three State Council White Papers provides a comprehensive view of the emerging theory of Socialist Democracy built around the core premises of Chinese Marxist-Leninism in the New (post Reform and Opening Up) Era. The first defines and situates notions of political parties within contemporary Chinese Leninism; the second embeds these networked and coordinated political collectives (under the leadership of the vanguard) within a now more deeply theorized concept of Leninist participatory democracy ; the last then holds up the model of “whole process people’s democracy” against the principles of (US) liberal democracy and offers the system of Leninist (Socialist) democratic organization as a better model for developing states.
The three White papers also reflected an elaborate discourse widely circulated under the authorship of Xi Jinping. Indeed, a recurring theme in the speeches of Xi Jinping during 2021 was centered on approaching answers to the question "what should democracy be?[12] [ 民主应该什么样？]. Xi criticized liberal democracy as formalistic and episodic, that alternatives are available better suited to developing and socialist states, and that the theories of democratic transformation as necessary or inevitable must be resisted.[13] The object was not merely to rationalize the political party system in China, but also within an evolving framework of Chinese Marxist-Leninist principles and through them in the construction of a Socialist democracy that might be offered as a contextually relevant to the world, and principally through its Belt & Road Initiative partners in developing states. The development of a theory of political parties in China, then, suggest both internal and external objectives. Internally, they provide the expression of democracy with national characteristics; externally they serve as a model for the proper application of the principles of democratic organization (“8个能否” [the eight cans]).[14]
The three White Papers, read under the chapeau of Xi’s speeches now widely circulated, carefully intertwine the three key themes--the nature of socialist constitutional democracy, the linking of democratic institutions to popular participation, and the role of Leninist parties in ensuring that linkage through systems of consultation connecting the masses ultimately with the core of leadership in Beijing. The study considers the hypothesis: ‘the emerging theory of Leninist political parties contributes to the development of a coherent theory of endogenous socialist constitutional democracy.’ It’s subsidiary hypothesis is that at least conceptually, the transformation of the ‘mass line’ principle into ‘whole process democracy’ provides a basis within Leninist political theory to link the people to their state institutions through the structuring of a system of well managed mass political organizations under the leadership of the vanguard. The object of this system is to enhance consultation under a system in which the vanguard drives the policy discussion frames the implementation agenda and controls the development of the guiding ideology. That rationalized system of 全过程民主 (Whole Process People’s Democracy) can then be stripped of liberal democratic values and practices and better align with principles of Chinese Marxist Leninism.
The section that follows considers the White Papers on political parties and comprehensive people’s democracy in more detail for the way each contributes a layer in the elaboration of this theory of political parties within the larger framework of the development of Marxist-Leninist principles and structures of Socialist Democracy. That analysis is undertaken as a function of seven fundamental questions: (1) What are differences between exogenous and endogenous democratic constitutional orders?; (2) What is the theoretical roles of parties within each linking people to governing institutions?;( 3) How does a Leninist conception of party fix into this framework; what are the differences and relation between a vanguard party and other political mass organizations?;(4) How does Leninist party system fit within conception of consultative democracy?; (5) The role of elections in endogenous democratic systems and the utility of the ‘mass line’ principle in connecting people to political organs; (6) Potential and challenges for Leninist party frameworks and constitutional consultative democracy frameworks in the operation of endogenous democratic systems; and (7) implications and value for other (Asian) political systems especially in developing states. These questions serve roughly as the structure of the study. Section 3 then adds the comparative layering, using the White Paper on US Democracy as the focus of a brief consideration of the way that these fundamental questions of conceiving, structuring, and operationalizing notions of parties in politics may be relevant to the development of (especially Asian) models of party democracy that might neither be wholly socialist or liberal democratic.
[1] Guiguzi: China’s First Treatise on Rhetoric (Hui Wu, trans; Southern Illinois University Press, 2016) (Captivate-Capture (Fei Qian飛 箝; Book II.5.2, p 56, 57-58).
[2] Robert A. Dahl, A Preface to Democratic Theory (University of Chicago Press 1956) 132 (especially with respect to notions of polyarchy in liberal democratic political party practice).
[3] Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, “What is to be Done? Burning Questions of our Movement” (first published in Iskra no. 4 May 1901 and as a separate work in 1902, Lenin Internet Archive 1999 <https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/>
[4] Consider the importance of electoral integrity and political parties in Matteo Bonotti & Daniel Weinstock, ‘Introduction: Parties, Electoral Systems and Political Theory,’ (2021) 57(3) Representation 287-295.
[5] Victor C. Funnell, ”The Metamorphosis of the Chinese Communist Party” (1971) 4(2) Studies in Comparative Communism 3-29
[6] On its history in that respect, e.g., Henrike Rudolph, ‘The preparations for the first Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference and the quest for legitimacy,’ in Ivan Sablin and Egas Moniz Bandeira (eds) Planning Parliaments in Eurasia 1850-1950 (Routledge 2021).
[7] In Cuba, for example, mass political organizations are not embedded into the system and popular consultation is done directly through the vanguard party and its associated mass organizations, with conformation of major policy legitimated through popular referendums. See, Larry Catá Backer, Flora Sapio, and James Korman, ‘Popular Participation in the Constitution of the Illiberal State - An Empirical Study of Popular Engagement and Constitutional Reform in Cuba and the Contours of Cuban Socialist Democracy 2.0,’ (2019) 34 Emory International Law Review 183
[8] People’s Republic of China, State Council, 《中国新型政党制度》 [White Paper, China's New Political Party System] (25 June 2021) [hereafter SC- China Political Party System] <http://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/2021-06/25/c_1127596748.htm>.
[9] People’s Republic of China, State Council, 中国的民主 [White Paper, China: Democracy That Works] (4 December 2021) [hereafter SC-Democracy that Works] <http://www.news.cn/english/2021-12/04/c_1310351231.htm > (English Translation); <http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2021-12/04/content_5655823.htm > (Original Chinese text).
[10] People’s Republic of China, State Council, 美国民主情况 [White Paper, The State of Democracy in the United States]; (5 December 2021) [hereafter SC-State of US Democracy] < http://www.news.cn/english/2021-12/05/c_1310352578.htm> (English Translation); <https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/zyxw/202112/t20211 > (Original Chinese text).
[11] SC-State of US Democracy, supra, p 1.
[12] 习近平 民主应该什么样？习近平这样说 [Xi Jinping, “What Should Democracy Be? Statements by Xi Jinping”]13 October 2021 求是网 [Qiushi] (various paths to democratic expression in a curated collection of portions of speeches and addresses))
[13] Ibid. (“人民只有在投票时被唤醒、投票后就进入休眠期，这样的民主是形式主义的。” [The people are only awakened when they vote, and then go into a dormant period after voting. Such democracy is formalistic]).
[14] Ibid. (2014年9月5日在庆祝全国人民代表大会成立60周年大会上的讲话 [Speech at the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the founding of the National People's Congress on September 5, 2014])
No comments:
Post a Comment