Presenting Paper "Linking People to Governing Institutions: 《中国新型政党制度》 (China‘s New Political Party System), 全过程民主 (Whole Process Democracy), and Leninist Political Parties Within Socialist Constitutional Democracy"

 

 

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. (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).

It was my great delight to participate in the Workshop: Political Parties and Constitutions in Asia held on 23-24  September 2022 at  St Hughes College, Oxford. Hosted by the  Oxford Programme in Asian Laws Series and the remarkable Ngoc Son Bui. 

My presentation was entitled "Linking People to Governing Institutions: 《中国新型政党制度》 (China‘s New Political Party System), 全过程民主 (Whole Process Democracy), and Leninist Political Parties Within Socialist Constitutional Democracy." The abstract frames the issues:

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.’ Its 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.

 One considers here the theorization of political collectivization within a Leninist system. It represents a means of institutionalization of political voices of the masses even as it seeks to embed collectives within structures of consultative democracy. The foundation of this system requires drawing a tight division between leading and consulting, between the character and function of the vanguard, and of the political collectives that exist under and through the body of the vanguard.  The drive toward conceptualization is grounded in the now decades old process of seeking Socialist theoretical purity as against liberal democratic corruption, and with it to deepen the conceptual legitimacy and the unique constitution of the Vanguard party as the embodiment of the leading social forces and as the holder of stewardship for exercise of political authority in the service of the masses.

It is in this context that theory builds, on the foundation of a robust theory of endogenous democracy, a system collectivization in which the masses are made suitable for deeper consultation responsibilities by dividing them into representative collectives that together constitute the nation. These collectives then are consulted by and participate in national politics under the leadership of the vanguard, even as a space is retained for exogenous electoral  democratic action through the National Peoples Congress system. Chinese political parties, under the CPC, exist within the political apparatus. This is contrasted to the role of political parties in liberal democracy that exist exogenous to the state and the governance apparatus even as they focus on the performance of elections to embed themselves within it as the critical junction between party and government.

The Conference PPT follow.  The paper may be accessed HERE, with its introduction reproduced below.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Linking People to Governing Institutions:  全过程民主 (Whole Process Democracy) Leninist Political Parties, Socialist Constitutional Democracy and 《中国新型政党制度》 (China's New Political Party System)

                 

                  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 the differences between exogenous and endogenous democratic constitutional orders?

(2) What are the theoretical roles of parties within each linking people to governing institutions?

(3) How does a Leninist conception of party fit into this framework; what are the differences and relations between a vanguard party and other political mass organizations?

(4) How does the Leninist party system fit within the 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.’ Its 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 reflect an even deeper conceptual gap between the way that these ideologies construct and apply the notion of political party within their democratic imaginaries.[2] Liberal democratic constitutionalism, and the role of the political party within it, is understood as expressions of the core principles of exogenous 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 which exercises political authority; parties exist as exogenous to political authority.  Within Marxist-Leninist collectives,  the leadership core of organized political authority exists as the organization of political authority itself, then administered through state organs and contributing collective organizations. Though both systems use the same word to describe collective political organization (political parties)—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.

 

In liberal democratic states the imaginaries of mass political organizations reflect and are reflected in the core constituting principles of individual autonomy and markets-oriented values. 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. That apparatus, in turn, serves as the collective vessel within which  all political authority as may be lawfully exercised has been rationalized 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.”[3] 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,[4] 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 organizations 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 the 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 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 (Communist) party—serves two roles.  First it operates as the repository of all political authority and, second it serves as the guardian of the objectives for state policy reflected in the fundamental ideology of Marxist-Leninism. All other mass political organizations, labelled political parties, must also serve those ends but under the guidance and leadership of the vanguard (Communist) party. Both mass political organs are responsible for the development of that ideology and its expression as public policy and orderly rule in support of core objectives. These policy objectives may change from one historical eras of development to another, but all lead to the final objective, the establishment of a communist society in the nation. To those ends, mass political organization, with the vanguard at its core, serve 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 their election processes, their political parties are charged with maintaining collective soft discipline on their 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.[5]   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 their ideological system through the mechanisms of vanguard party leadership. 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 in policy that 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 entered into these debates. Internally the debates reflected the great conceptual battles between traditional liberal democratic imaginaries and those of 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 from revolutionary vanguard to the party in power.[6] 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[7] 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.[8]

 

This study takes a deep 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. 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’  [全过程民主]. 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.

 

To those ends, the study focuses on three key documents distributed by the Chinese State Council at the end of 2021. Each contributes to what 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),[9] 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)[10] 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),[11] “aims to expose the deficiencies and abuse of democracy in the US as well as the harm of its exporting such democracy.”[12] Taken together, the three State Council White Papers provide 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 2021 speeches of Xi Jinping was centered on approaching answers to the question "what should democracy be?[13] [ 民主应该什么样？]. Xi criticized liberal democracy as formalistic and episodic, suggested that alternatives better suited to developing and socialist states are available, and urged that the theories of democratic transformation as necessary or inevitable must be resisted.[14] 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 alternative political model to the world, 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]).[15]

 

Read through the lens of Xi’s now widely circulated speeches, the State Council 2021 White Papers on democracy 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.’ Its 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 the 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. 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] Jean-Paul Sartre, The Imaginary: A Phenomenological Psychology of the Imagination (Jonathan Webber (trans), London: Routledge, 2004); Katheen Lennon, “Judith Butler and the Sartrean Imaginary,” (2017) 23(1) Sartre Studies International 22–37.

[3] Robert A. Dahl, A Preface to Democratic Theory (University of Chicago Press 1956) 132 (.

[4] 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/>

[5] 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.

[6] Victor C. Funnell, ”The Metamorphosis of the Chinese Communist Party” (1971) 4(2) Studies in Comparative Communism 3-29

[7] 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).

[8] In Cuba, 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

[9] 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>.

[10] 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).

[11] 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).

[12] SC-State of US Democracy, supra, p 1.

[13] 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))

[14] 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]).

[15] 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])