“Reflections on the Cultural Revolution” an article under the penname Huangfuxinping 皇甫欣平 argues that China needs to think more deeply about the lessons of the Cultural Revolution. At the deepest level, the problem is not just personality cults or class struggle ideas used in a widely expansive manner despite the victory of socialism. The problem is the one-party rule of the Communist Party that puts it above the constitution. Power needs to be put in a box, writes Huangfuxinping.
“Reflections on the Cultural Revolution” is apparently by a Chinese Academy of Social Sciences scholar and former People’s Daily Deputy Editor Zhou Ruijin, [see his Baidu online encyclopedia biography in Chinese ] now in his mid 70s, reflecting on the lessons of the Cultural Revolution.
Zhou argues that the official lessons drawn from the Cultural Revolution in 1981 don’t go far enough, that the problem is that the Chinese Communist Party needs to be constrained by the PRC Constitution and other political parties encouraged to compete with it.
Zhou argues in that article essence for a free constitutional system adding ‘not supporting the rule of the Party [towering] over the state doesn’t mean that I don’t want to strengthen the leadership of the Party. 不赞成以党治国，并不意味着不赞成加强共产党的领导
That disclaimer wasn’t enough: Zhou’s article appeared only a week ago but it has already been taken down on many websites inside the PRC.
The deletion message on one Sina.com.cn blog that shared Zhou’s article: “We are sorry, this article has been encrypted. You may browse other articles on the blog article list on the left.” 很抱歉,该文章已经被加密! 您可以通过左侧的推荐博文组件浏览其它文章。
Huangfu Xinping: Reflections on the Cultural Revolution in Ten Thousand Words
Author：Huangfu Xinping
Source: Phoenix Review
Source date: July 14, 2016
Published on this site: July 15, 2016
The Cultural Revolution demonstrates just how absurd the political life of a country can become with democracy and the rule of law. Without them, power cannot be constrained at all.
2016 is a special year: it has been exactly fifty years since the unprecedented Proletarian Cultural Revolution was launched, and forty years since the end of the Cultural Revolution. The Cultural Revolution, launched fifty years ago, lasted for ten years and brought profound disasters to China and its people; the end of the Cultural Revolution forty years ago led to the subsequent reform and opening up, which has brought us to where we are today.
Therefore, when talking about reform, we must discuss the Cultural Revolution; reform and the Cultural Revolution are two topics that are unavoidable and inseparable. The end of the Cultural Revolution essentially ended the class struggle that had long divided society. For a long period after the Cultural Revolution, rejecting all that the Cultural Revolution stood for became the broad consensus of Chinese society. The further deepening of reform depends upon reflecting about this widely shared consensus.
But whether its rejection is complete or merely partial depends on whether there has been real and thorough reflection about the Cultural Revolution. Absent this thorough reflection, there can be no real rejection. If one avoids reflection, then how can it be thoroughly rejected? The diverse viewpoints that have arisen about the Cultural Revolution in recent years are a symptom of this problem.
I. The Cultural Revolution Forced Us to Realize the Dangers of Autocracy
In the period immediately after the end of the Cultural Revolution, reflections on the Cultural Revolution, basically focused on “Gang of Four”. Everything focused on them, they were the target of all criticism, they were blamed for everything. It was the “Gang of Four” who disobeyed and deviated in implementing policy. This led to serious mistakes.
On the other hand, it focused on stories by victims about their sufferings. At that time there was a famous Qu Xiao 曲啸 , who became a household name in the mid to late 1980s. There was a movie “The Shepherd” in which he was the main character. Qu Xiao made many lecture tours in China, and later went to the United States, tearfully told his story of being a son and daughter of the Party, and after suffering all sorts of hardships and nine deaths, he still remained devoted and loyal to the Party. Qu Xiao said, “The Party is the mother, the mother hit the wrong child, the child will not and should not hold a grudge!”
[The Shepherd on YouTube]
Hearing these words, Professor Wang Rongzu 汪荣祖, a Taiwanese historian who was present at the time, could not help but ask: “If a mother beats a child for a long time, is she still a real mother? How can we ask that the abused child be loyal to her when she is even more cruel than the stepmothers in old stories? For a mother to treat her own child in this way is illegal in any civilized country and is punishable by law.” Immediately, Qu Xiao’s positive propaganda appeared to be negative. He had to interrupt his speaking schedule and hastily end his trip to the United States. He became seriously ill upon his return to China, and thereafter disappeared from the lecture stage and faded from view.
This example shows how superficial the reflection on the Cultural Revolution was at that time. People’s criticism of the Cultural Revolution was basically limited to the criticism of the phenomenon. It did not get to the heart of the matter.
After the Resolution on Party History of the Sixth Plenary Session of the Eleventh Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, it was generally believed that the ten-year turmoil of the Cultural Revolution was caused by extreme leftist ideology, and that history’s lesson for us was that we should focus on economic construction, vigorously develop social productive forces; strengthen the construction of democracy and the legal system, and rule the country according to law.
In August 1980, during an interview with Italian journalist Orina Fallaci, Deng Xiaoping said that he would like to make a speech on the subject. Deng Xiaoping said, “Democratic centralism had been destroyed and the collective leadership had been destroyed. Otherwise, one cannot understand why the Cultural Revolution broke out.” Fallaci frankly expressed her concern that so far she could not see how to prevent something as terrible as the Cultural Revolution from recurring. Deng Xiaoping explained, “This has to be solved from the institutional side. Some of our past systems were actually influenced by feudalism, including personal superstition, patriarchy or paternalism, and even the life-time system of cadre positions. We are now studying to avoid repeating this phenomenon and are prepared to get started by reforming the system. We have a history of several thousand years of feudal society in this country. We have lacked socialist democracy and a socialist legal system. Now we have to seriously establish a socialist democracy and a socialist legal system. Only in this way can we solve the problem.”
In March 1981, Deng Xiaoping pointed out in a conversation with the comrades in charge of the drafting group of the Historical Resolution that “the Cultural Revolution was a serious, global mistake, one far more serious that the other mistakes of which we had made in the seventeen years before the Cultural Revolution began. Its consequences were extremely serious, and its effects are still with us today”.
Marx wrote more than once the significance of the development of things to a typical or completed state (which should also include extremes) for the understanding of things and a certain stage of their development their essence is revealed. It is often only when their development is complete that it can be fully understood. It was the Cultural Revolution that made us realize the extreme dangers of authoritarianism.
II. The Cultural Revolution did not Come Out of Nowhere
With the Cultural Revolution, the first factor was the prevalence of authoritarian cult of the individual, and the second was the ideology of class struggle. The combination of these two led to the deep destruction of the rule of law and created a situation of lawlessness.
The Cultural Revolution was never an isolated event; its occurrence and development did not come out of nowhere; it was the inevitable result of a series of mistakes.
During the Cultural Revolution, Mao Zedong became the embodiment of truth, and his words so that “one sentence from him is worth ten thousand from anyone else” 一句顶一万句 . The cult of the individual peaked. The rise of the cult of the individual can be traced back as far as the Yan’an period. It was the cult of the individual and authoritarian style that began to emerge during that period that intensified under such a tremendous victory as the founding of the country, which eventually led to extreme leftism and the outbreak of the Cultural Revolution.
In his history of the origins of the Cultural Revolution, Chen Po 陈坡 writes: “The pre-history of the Cultural Revolution is the history of the origins of the Cultural Revolution …… The Cultural Revolution originated in the intra-party controversy over the five-year famine from 1959 to 1963, and the Seven Thousand People Conference in early 1962 was a key event containing the seed of the Cultural Revolution. This is because this conference was a focused and comprehensive review and introspection of the Great Famine within the CCP in the 1960s. This is discussed in “Meditations on the Cultural Revolution”. The root cause of the famine was the Oppose ‘Anti-adventurism’ [反反冒进 Fǎn fǎn màojìn] campaign that ran from the end of 1957 to the first half of 1958, and oppose ‘anti-adventuring’ was the majority decision of the Central Committee after the Eighth Congress in 1956-1957. Oppose ‘Anti-adventurism’ disrupted the original economic plan and previous arrangements. Mao overrode the Politburo, one word from Mao overcame all resistance. Flattering Mao became the order of the day at the top ranks of the Chinese Communist Party. At the second meeting of the 8th National Congress, Zhou Enlai said: “Chairman Mao represents Truth. The Great Leap Forward was a direct product of the anti-‘anti-adventurism’. From the anti-‘anti-adventurism’ campaign to the Cultural Revolution: this was essentially a struggle within the Chinese Communist Party, a party-caused disaster. During the twenty-seven years of Mao’s rule, there were 3 years of war, 5 years of famine, and 10 years of the Cultural Revolution. The remaining 9 years were filled with constant ideological campaigns from the land reform to the Four Clean-ups, with major campaigns within small campaigns. Life was filled with these never-ending ideological campaigns. All these tosses and turns brought unprecedented suffering to our compatriots, but Mao’s argument was always that all this was being done for the sake of the 600 million people, the Chinese revolution and the world revolution. Lin Biao privately commented that “Mao believes that he represents the people and was the very embodiment of the people.”
Why did Mao’s political thought become nearly all there was to the core of party ideology? Why did his erroneous extreme leftist line manage to prevail? The most fundamental reason was the long-formed cult of the individual personality. This gave Mao Zedong an unparalleled and enormous authority, a word from Mao meant the difference between life and death. Later it became ‘one sentence from Mao is worth ten thousand sentences from anyone else” and Mao himself became the embodiment of truth. Nobody either inside or outside the party could or dared oppose him. The Cultural Revolution fully illustrates how absurd the political life of a country can be without democracy and where power is unchecked.
The cult of the individual is a phenomenon, but in essence, it is still authoritarianism. What is the difference between saying that a person is the Red Sun and saying that he is the true son of the dragon? The cheap applause, even if it is loud as a raging tide, does not represent public opinion. This phenomenon is inevitably a laughingstock in the judgment of history. To remain highly vigilant against the cult of the individual is in fact to be vigilant against authoritarianism. Almost all socialist countries have in practice experienced too much concentration of power. Some of these countries have engaged in personal authoritarianism. Examples include the political anomalies of the Great Purge and the Great Repression in Soviet Eastern Europe, and the Cultural Revolution in China, all of which seriously tarnished the reputation of socialism.
After ending the Cultural Revolution, the Communist Party recognized the dangers of the cult of the individual and continued class struggle, and proposed to focus on economic construction, to push forward both reform and openness. This was a set-aside from the Cultural Revolution. This change was historic. Chinese society showed unprecedented unity, all industries began to flourish, “even broken bowls could be filled with water,” and people had hope for a better life.
III. During the Decade of Cultural Revolution, Hundreds of Millions Falsely Accused and Persecuted One Another
The theory of class struggle was also an important ideological root of the Cultural Revolution. This continued throughout the whole period of the Cultural Revolution. The great inertia of the long class struggle and the misunderstanding of socialism caused by traditional concepts overshadowed the disagreements within the Party where there were struggles over different ideological lines. This eventually led to the Cultural Revolution.
During the Cultural Revolution, people were divided into three, six, or nine groups and then treated according to the class struggle mentality. They were given names like capitalists, cow devils and snake gods, traitors, traitors, royalists, the rich, the bad, the right, smash-and-grab elements, May 16 elements and the stinking old nine. They were accused of supporting a black line of literature and art, the black line of education, the right-leaning reversal of the socialist wind. Although given different names, all were publicly made to be the face of the class enemy. Once anyone was placed in any of these categories, they were inevitably subjected to different degrees of persecution.
After the end of 1966, society split into two camps: the “conservative faction” 当权派 dāngquán pài and the “rebel faction” 造反派 zàofǎn pài. Both camps claimed to be “faithful defenders of Mao Zedong Thought”, while people in the opposing camp were labeled as class enemies who were “anti-party, anti-socialist, and anti-Mao Zedong Thought”. Once one faction had the upper hand, it would try to kill its opponents before it was too late.
Among the 100 million people who suffered from the Cultural Revolution, the majority of them were victims of the struggle between the two factions, i.e., the masses who actively participated in the Cultural Revolution. Because of the serious bloodshed, many places have left cemeteries of Red Guards who died in vain. Within the Party, the brutality of the struggle was also mind-boggling. Xia Yan wrote a parody of the “Song os Head Shaving” called “Song of Rectification“. It goes like this:
“I heard that people must be rectified, but now they are all rectified; Everyone must be rectified; if they are not rectified they are not human beings; Everyone is rectified by somebody else, they are still on our side; Please see those people who are being rectified, everybody is rectifying everybody else.”
The language is playful, helpless, and darkly humorous, showing the cruelty of the struggle and the fear of the people at that time. Because during the Cultural Revolution, the revolutionary class of today may well be the counter-revolutionary class tomorrow. The roles of the persecuted and the persecuted could change in an instant. Everyone was on tenterhooks.
On June 10, 1966, when Mao met with Vietnamese President Ho Chi Minh, he said, “This time hundreds or thousands of people, large or small, may have to rectified, especially in academia, education, journalism, publishing, literature and art, universities, high schools, and elementary schools.” He stated the key targets of the campaign, but greatly expanded the scope of the crackdown, rectifying not hundreds or thousands of people in reality, but millions or tens of millions.
After the end of the Cultural Revolution, the old writer Ye Shengtao 叶圣陶 published an article in the People’s Daily, “Ten years of human disasters. I have a hundred friends who were persecuted to death.” Writer Qin Mu 秦牧 said, “I am not a well-traveled person, but later I calculated that out of the people I had known and had shaken hands with as many as 27 died violent deaths. From this one can infer that there must have been a huge number of victims all over China. …… This is really was an unprecedented catastrophe, how many millions of people suffered hardship, how many millions of people end up filled with hatred, how many families fall apart, how many children and teenagers turned into rogues and villains, how many books were torched, how many famous monuments were destroyed, how many sages How many books were torched, how many famous monuments were destroyed, how many sages’ graves were desecrated, and how many evils were committed in the name of revolution!”
How many people died during the Cultural Revolution? On December 13, 1978, at the closing ceremony of the Central Working Conference, Ye Jianying said, “During the Cultural Revolution, 100 million people suffered through ideological mass struggle sessions and 20 million died.” In 1980 Deng Xiaoping told the Italian female journalist Fallaci: “It can never be counted because people died from all sorts of causes. China is so vast, in short, a lot of people died!” The Facts of Historical Political Movements Since the Founding of the People’s Republic gives the following figures: more than 4.2 million people were imprisoned and censored, more than 1,728,000 died, more than 135,000 were executed for counter-revolutionary crimes, more than 237,000 died in armed struggles, 7.03 million were disabled, and more than 71,200 families were destroyed.
It can be said that the emergence of the Cultural Revolution was a sign that China began to lose its moral bottom line and human control during the era of the rule of man that has persisted for thousands of years. The decade of the Cultural Revolution, in which hundreds of millions of people were falsely accused and persecuted each other, was a massive and naked massacre, on such a scale that was extremely rare in the history of mankind.
IV. Why Class Struggle Ideology is Wrong
For the mistake of continuing to use class struggle thinking during the socialist period, the Resolution on Several Historical Problems of the Party since the Founding of the People’s Republic of China analyzes: “From the point of view of leadership ideology, due to the historical characteristics of our Party, after the basic completion of socialist transformation, when observing and dealing with new contradictions and problems in politics, economy and culture that emerged in the process of socialist social development, it was easy to regard problems that no longer belong to the class struggle as still problems involving class struggle. Moreover, in the face of the class struggle under new conditions, we used the old methods which we had become accustomed to and had experience with and so conducted large-scale stormy mass struggles. We were familiar this this kind of struggle but it was no longer suitable under the new conditions. These old methods should not have been copied. They led to a serious expansion of the class struggle.” Here the Resolution has clearly indicated that the copying of the methods of struggle against the enemy of the revolutionary era will inevitably lead to the expansion of the class struggle. In a sense, the “Cultural Revolution” was the result of abusing the contradictions between the enemy and us, confusing two types of contradictions having different natures, and amplifying the differences of opinion within the Party and putting them on the stage of class struggle.
When the law was amended in 1997, the crime of counter-revolution was abolished and replaced by the crime of endangering national security. The regime was here showing that it had common sense. As a manifestation of the will of the ruling class, the law would not allow “revolutionary” acts such as endangering the sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of the state, splitting the state, armed insurrection, subverting the regime and overthrowing the existing system.
The fundamental error of the theory of continuing revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat lies in the misconception that after the establishment of the socialist system, there is still a bourgeoisie and a class confrontation and class struggle in the whole society, and therefore a political revolution in which one class overthrows another is still needed. This was a typical hostile thinking that wrongly extended class confrontation and class struggle to socialist society, thus leading to serious consequences.
Many of the things that were criticized as revisionist or capitalist in the Cultural Revolution were in fact the very principles of Marxism and socialism, many of which Mao Zedong himself had proposed or supported in the past. “Without stability and unity, there is nothing,” and “We have already suffered for ten years or so in the past; if there is further chaos, the people will not be able to bear it, and the people will not agree to it.” The stability and unity that Deng Xiaoping referred to was precisely the correction of the abuse of the theory of class struggle that had brought so much chaos along with the desire for economic construction.
After the Cultural Revolution, the doors of the country were gradually opened. The Chinese people discovered that while they had been immersed in ideological campaigns, many other countries had been trying to develop their economies. Some countries and regions began to take off economically, such as the “Four Small Dragons” in Asia, China lost a lot of development opportunities due to ideological campaigns, and the distance between the developed countries has widened. Rumor has it that Deng Xiaoping once reflected that after World War II, the countries that followed the United States became rich; while the countries that followed the Soviet Union suffered from poverty. This may also be what the Chinese public thought but dared not say.
V. Democratic Politics is the Logical Basis for Establishing a New Type of State
Why are we called the People’s Republic of China? The purpose of the republic is to end the change of autocratic dynasties and establish a new modern state. And democratic politics is the logical foundation for the establishment of a new modern state. The establishment of the First People’s Government of the People’s Republic of China was the result of the First Political Consultative Conference, which, under the historical conditions at that time, reflected to a certain extent that “the power of the ruler comes from the consent of the ruled”. This was an epoch-making event in China. What is meant by epoch-making? In the words of Xu Youyu, it means that the state replaced the dynasty.
The new regime’s main task should be to heal social wounds and build institutions and the economy. But Mao Zedong did not. He continued to focus on the class struggle as the platform. The Eighth Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC), which had set the guideline of expanding democracy, strengthening the legal system, and concentrating on construction in 1956, did the opposite in 1957; and the mistakes that developed after 1957 were recognized both inside and outside the Party at that time, and there were correct development trends in the Party that were opposed to them, but all failed to stop the “lefttist deviation”. Moreover, every effort to correct the “leftist deviation” led to its rebound and it getting stronger.
The vast majority of leaders created by the stormy revolutionary era were accustomed to thinking in the way of that era and solving problems with the solutions of that era. They could not deny themselves and could not abandon their traditional way of thinking about struggle and revolution, and could not recognize that things had changed and that they needed to understand modern society from a new perspective. The era in which the power of a god-like leader and force created regime legitimacy had passed. The barrel of a gun is no longer a source of legitimacy for modern civilized regimes. Legitimacy comes only from public opinion and the hearts of the people. Power is given by the people, that is the truth that was now being said.
The limits of this understanding was reflected in their obsession with “ruling the country by the Party”. “All decisions, orders and laws of the state must be directed by the Party”, resulting in “the Party is more important than the state and is above the state”. The distorted relationship between the Party and the state results in an authoritarianism tendency, which is preventing Chinese society from advancing to a modern civilized society.
Professor Tong Zhiwei of East China University of Political Science and Law writes that in recent years, there have been a number of controversies in the field of politics and law in China, including the controversy over the relative positions of the Party and the law, the controversy over whether the political reform should move forward or backward, the controversy over whether it is necessary to severely suppress speech, the controversy over the legitimacy of constitutionalism, and so on. These arguments seem to be isolated, but in fact they all stem from the tension between the elements within the concept of governance. To be more specific, they stem from the conflict between the traditional governance strategy of “ruling the country by the Party” and the new strategy of “implementing the rule of law and building a socialist state under the rule of law” after the 15th National Congress of the Communist Party of China.
The reason for this situation is related to the congenital defects when reform was launched. According to Professor Sun Liping of Tsinghua University, the reform was initiated as a result of the combination of several forces. Among them were the realistic demands of the people to improve their economic situation, and the ideals of intellectuals to change the status quo. Even more important than these, however, was the demand of those who lost power during the Cultural Revolution to return to the center of power. Among those people were two groups: those who wanted to return to the 17 years before the Cultural Revolution, and those who wanted to use it to move towards a new civilization. This second group was in charge during the early 1980s. However, what could be contrasted with that time was the absurd years of the Cultural Revolution, so those who held power were full of confidence, and this confidence caused the enlightenment of the 1980s. Yet the appearance of enlightenment concealed the defects of reform, namely the absence of genuine values that pointed towards a new civilization.
VI. The Direction of Deepening Reform, in a Nutshell, Replace Party Rule with the Rule of Law
The difference between medieval and modern societies, between barbaric and civilized societies, lies in autocracy or democracy, in the sources of the law, in the use of the law, and in the legal transitions of power. Under the premise of legality, social development is within a controlled and relatively certain range. This certainty allows people in its midst to be free from inexplicable fears and anxieties, and thus gain physical and mental freedom. From the very beginning, the Chinese Communists have been fighting for democracy and freedom, for bidding farewell to dictatorship and backwardness, and for building a civilized and advanced modern state; we cannot become the kind of people we initially opposed.
Law Cannot Be A Tool for Rulers
During January 1955, Liu Shaoqi once said, “After the promulgation of the PRC Constitution, we must strengthen the rule of law and make good use of it to carry out the class struggle by using the power of the state and the power of the social masses. Our laws are not meant to restrain ourselves, but to restrain the enemy and to combat and destroy them.” During July 1955, Liu Shaoqi again instructed the head of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate in Beidaihe that “our laws are to protect the people to fight the enemy, and not to restrain the hands and feet of the revolutionary people. If any law binds our own hands and feet, we must consider abolishing that law.”
During July 1955, Liu Shaoqi said, “The first task of the Procuratorate at present is to ensure that the counter-revolutionaries who should be arrested are arrested promptly. The Constitution has already stipulated that arrests and prosecutions must go through the procuratorate. It is illegal to arrest people without the approval of the procuratorate. Now the Party wants to carry out a socialist revolution and arrest those counter-revolutionaries who undermine the socialist revolution, so the procuratorate must quickly take up all the arrests and prosecutions. Whom the party committee has decided to arrest, the procuratorate should close its eyes. This may also be wrong, which may be clear in the party, but externally, all the prosecutor’s office to take up the burden. …… If the procuratorate does not act as a shield for the Party, democrats will use this against the Party, and the result can be said to be tantamount to the procuratorate being anti-Party.” He also repeatedly stressed that “the Procuratorate must be in the hands of the Party, and this organ, like the public security organs, is also a sharp weapon of the Party and the people in their struggle against counter-revolutionaries, and must be in the hands of their own people. It must be ensured that the procuratorial organs are absolutely pure in organization.”
From Liu Shaoqi’s above instructions and speeches, he imbued that law and the legal system with the thinking of class struggle, and obviously believed that Party power and the regime are superior to the law. Once one agrees that party power and regime are superior to the law, then law is only a tool and not something to be valued in itself. It can thus be dispensed with.
Chen Yun‘s 陈云 was even more blunt in his opposition to legislation on the press:: “During the Kuomintang rule, a press law was enacted, and we Communists studied its words carefully, pulled on its pigtails, and exploited its loopholes. Now that we are in power, I think it’s better not to have a press law, lest people exploit our loopholes. Without the law, we take the initiative and control it however we want.”
It can be seen that in the understanding of the time, the law was merely a tool for the rulers and not a cage that constrained power. This is perhaps the fundamental reason why there was almost a gap in legal institution building during the Cultural Revolution and the years that preceded it.
The cost of institution building may be high, and under extreme conditions, it may even require bloodshed. But once it is established, the cost of maintaining society will be greatly reduced. Ruling the country by the {arty will inevitably bring about the consequence that the Party is above the law and that power is bigger than the law. Thus even the best of legal systems would be reduced to a mere ornament, thus hindering the implementation of the rule of law.
In an article, Professor Yongnian Zheng 郑永年 of the National University of Singapore wrote, “China has more anti-corruption systems than any country in the world. Singapore has only one anti-corruption bureau and Hong Kong has only one Independent Commission Against Corruption. Why then are these two societies very clean? How many anti-corruption systems are there in China? The {arty has a discipline inspection, the government has a corruption prevention bureau, an anti-corruption bureau, the National People’s Congress has one and the Chinese People’s Consultative Congress has one, and every university has one. You often find, however, that these anti-corruption people are the most corrupt of all. I used to see the vice mayor of Beijing, Wang Baosen, who is the director of the Beijing anti-corruption bureau, he himself was the most corrupt of men. How could such a situation function? So Wang Qishan suggested first addressing the root of the problem and worrying about the symptoms later. I agree very strongly. If we look at the system, it’s not that the more systems, the better. There are already too many systems in China, but the key is what kind of system. Chinese intellectuals say that corruption in China is because of the one-party system, because it is too centralized. I say that’s not true. China has too much internal decentralization, so many positions in the Party and so many anti-corruption agencies. Nobody is really in charge however. All this instead gives many opportunities to corrupt people. Who is in charge anyway? Singapore is very simple, if there is corruption, it is the anti-corruption bureau that is responsible, it cannot be shifted to any other agency. Hong Kong is the same.”
Professor Zheng sees the phenomenon, but does not get at the root of things and so reaches the opposite conclusion from myself. He argues that the anti-corruption system is not a matter of more, but of who is in charge, and that corrupt officials left to operate it will be corrupt as usual. And we believe that this is precisely the consequence of ruling the country by the Party, the result of the system lacking power. Of course, one thing he said is right, he stressed the human factor: clean people to build the system is called a good system, corrupt people to build the system is still a bad system. But even if it is a good system, if the Party is above the law and power is above the law, then law at best, it is just decorative. Think about the year when Mao Zedong as the party chairman held up the Constitution of the Chinese Communist Party as he spoke and Liu Shaoqi during the Cultural Revolution as the State President held up the PRC Constitution to demand his powers. What a vast difference there was between them!
VII. Be Open to Various Forces in Society
Another consequence of ruling the country by the Party is to reject or even suppress the participation of other social forces, which makes it difficult for the ruling party to be the problem solver, but rather the problem itself.
With more than 80 million members, the Communist Party of China is the largest political organization in the world. The Communist Party is the main force of reform and opening up, but not the only force. After more than thirty years of reform and opening up, other forces in Chinese society, too, have developed to a certain extent, different interests have begun to emerge in society, and domestic conflicts have entered a period of proliferation. These different social forces will undoubtedly put some pressure on the party, but it should be recognized that this is also a source of motivation to carry out its own construction and avoid rigidity.
The self-confidence of the ruling party cannot and should not be based on suppressing and clamping down on other social forces. Engels once pointed out that social development is the result of the combined efforts of various forces, and that a good society should be the result of a fair game of different social forces, not the result in one family becoming dominant and the others cooped up in cages. A civilized society should never be a society filled with life-and-death struggles but a society where various social forces can get along in a reasonable way.
Democracy is one of the core values of socialism. Democracy should not be just a slogan, but a spirit, moreover, an institutional arrangement. The most fundamental manifestation of democracy is the constitutional framework. The ability to place governing behavior within the framework of the PRC Constitution is the touchstone of democracy. It can be said that the PRC Constitution, something shared by all in Chinese society is a contract made in accordance with the will of all members of society, is the cornerstone of national governance and social stability in general. This shared constitution is the only way to build a social community. Since it is a community, it requires the equal participation of various social forces. Other social organizations and forces in Chinese society that also want to play a role in promoting the development of Chinese society should not be opposed, restricted, or discouraged. The participation of other social forces will not bring about the disintegration of the community, but only the further consolidation of the community and thus social stability.
The participation of different social forces also implies the sharing of responsibilities. The ruling party will one day be overwhelmed by taking everything on itself. It is not good for China to have no other political parties and social organizations other than the Communist Party to develop and operate. Long-term coexistence, mutual supervision, sharing honor and disgrace, and everyone being in the same boat should not be limited to the eight democratic parties, nor should the eight democratic parties be mere window dressing. It should not be like the Kuomintang in the past, with one party, one doctrine, and one leader. Other normal and social organizations should be tolerated, allowed, supported, and encouraged to operate, develop, and participate in politics within the scope of the PRC Constitution.
Democratic politics is a new form of politics different from authoritarian politics, which replaces the bloodshed of violent massacres with the noise and bustle of the popular election process, “counting heads instead of breaking them”; democracy tames power, but does not put an end to it. It puts power in a cage and does not let it come out to hurt people. Power being in a cage is safest for those in power, because it eliminates the greatest threat they face: being violently replaced. In this way, it is possible to say goodbye to political barbarism and move towards political civilization, and to achieve the long-term stability and political security of the community.
Democracy is not a deprivation of the established institutions, but a protection of them. The alarmist warnings to those in power about how bad democracy is and how they will lose their power and interests are not historical and realistic, and will only make them farther and farther from the trend of the times. Only by practicing democracy can the freedom of citizens be defended, the long-lasting peace of the country be achieved, and the beautiful ideal of permanent peace be realized in international politics.
VIII. Ending the rule of the State by the Party begins with the Rule of Law
According to Professor Tong Zhiwei 童之伟 , “implementing the rule of law and building a socialist state under the rule of law” and “ruling the country by the party” are completely opposing strategies for governing the country. Before reform and opening up, the ruling method was basically “ruling the country by the Party”. After the reform and opening up, it began to gradually change to the direction of “implementing the rule of law and building a socialist state under the rule of law”.
Looking back at history, the first time the Communist Party theoretically affirmed “ruling the country according to the rule of law and building a socialist state under the rule of law” was the 15th National Congress of the Communist Party of China. This move marked a fundamental innovation in the CPC’s approach to governance. It also directly rejected the “party rule” approach to governance. After the 15th National Congress, the National People’s Congress subsequently amended the PRC Constitution, stipulating in Article 5 that “the People’s Republic of China shall implement the rule of law and build a socialist state under the rule of law.” Prior to this, the Constitution of the Chinese Communist Party had already specified the principle that the Party must operate within the scope of the PRC Constitution and the law, and at the 15th National Congress, in the form of an amendment to the Party Constitution, it stipulated the strategy for the rule of law and the building of a state under the rule of law, which was later written into the Constitution.
In fact, the following provisions of Article 5 of the PRC Constitution have previously expressed, to no small extent, the requirements of building a state based on the rule of law: The state upholds the unity and dignity of the socialist legal system. All state organs and armed forces, political parties and social organizations, enterprises and institutions must abide by the PRC Constitution and the law. All violations of the PRC Constitution and the law must be investigated. No organization or individual may have privileges beyond the {RC Constitution and the law.
Although it seems that “ruling the country by the party” and “implementing the rule of law and building a socialist state under the rule of law” can coexist in some places, they are, on the whole, seriously opposed and incompatible. Typical manifestations of “ruling the country by the party” include a lack of separation between party institutions and state organs, a lack of separation between party property and state property, an excessive concentration of power, and the substitution of the party for the state (politics) and the substitution of party power for law. These cannot be compatible with “ruling the country according to the rule of law and building a socialist state under the rule of law. These cannot be compatible with “rule by law and build a socialist state of law”.
To truly “implement the rule of law and build a socialist state under the rule of law”, we must use the PRC Constitution and laws to clarify the scope of party power, regulate the procedures for the exercise of party power, and separate the party from the state in terms of the subjects of legal relations, institutions, property and personnel. We cannot proclaim of “rule by law, building a socialist state of law” while the reality remains “rule by party”.
It is true that all new systems are born from old systems, and the old system will certainly leave a trace in any new system. The choice of reform path is historical path dependent. The emergence and evolution of political systems and ideologies are all influenced by the past, and they also limit the choice of the current reform path. That someone disapproves of one-party rule does not mean that they oppose strengthening the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party.
The leadership of the ruling party is mainly reflected in leadership in its political lines and policies, the selection, nomination and decision of important cadres and personnel in the organization, as well as the leadership of ideological and propaganda and ideological work. It is not intended to take over the work of the state organs, namely the organs of people’s power and the administrative, judicial and procuratorial organs. The Party’s leadership has a constitutional basis and must proceed according to the law. Through the act of legislation or law revision, the Party translates its will into the will of the state and makes the law the norm of behavior for all members of society, including the ruling party itself. Although there are party rules outside the law, party rules only apply within the ruling party. In the era of rule of law, we should emphasize the rules of behavior in the whole society, that is, the general rules of the legal system and social behavior, which are the standard of behavior for all members of the society under the rule of law, including members of the ruling party.
China is a country with a constitution, and a constitution that is in the interest of all Chinese people and can be effectively implemented is the consensus that we seek. Some time ago, the news of government officials taking the oath of office before the face of the Constitution was in the press from time to time, which is a good sign. To end the rule by party, we should start with the rule by law, and the Constitution, the biggest law. Putting power in a cage means putting all social forces, including the ruling party, under the authority of the Constitution.
文革的发生，充分说明，不实行民主法治，权力不受制约，一个国家的政治生活可以荒唐到何种程度。
2016年是一个特殊的年份：距离史无前例的无产阶级文化大革命发动，正好五十周年；而距离文革结束，是四十周年。五十年前发动的文革，历经十年，给国家和民族带来了深重的灾难；四十年前结束了文革，才有了后来的改革开放，才有了我们的今天。
因此，说到改革，就无可避免地要说到文革，这是个无法回避也无法割裂的话题。文革的结束，基本告别了割裂社会的阶级斗争，文革结束以后的相当一个时期，否定文革成了中国社会的共识，是个最大公约数。而进一步深化改革，则是要寻找最小公倍数。
但是否定得彻底与否，要看有没有真正彻底的反思。没有彻底的反思，就不可能有真正的否定。一味地回避反思，那么如何否定，否定到什么程度，都会成为问题。近些年围绕文革所出现的不同声音，正是这种表现。
一、文革让我们认识到专制的危害
在文革结束后的一个时期，对于文革的反思，一方面，基本集中在把“四人帮”当作箭垛和痰桶，所有仇恨的箭支都要射在他们身上，所有的脏水都要吐到他们脸上:人们普遍认为，毛主席发动文革的本意是好的，是“四人帮”阳奉阴违，在执行的过程中跑偏，才导致了严重的错误。
另一方面则集中在对苦难的控诉。当时有个著名的曲啸，八十年代中后期成为家喻户晓的人物。有一部电影《牧马人》，故事里的主人公就是他。曲啸在国内做过不少巡回演讲，后来还到了美国，声泪俱下地讲述了自己作为党的儿女在遭受了种种不堪、九死一生之后，仍然痴心不改、忠诚爱党的事迹。曲啸说：“党就是妈妈，妈妈打错了孩子，孩子是不会也不应该记仇的！”
听到这番话，当时在场的台湾历史学家汪荣祖教授不禁发问：“如此长期地打自己的孩子，那还是亲娘吗？比后娘都残忍，还有什么资格要求被虐待的孩子忠诚于她？母亲这样对待自己的孩子，在任何文明国家都是非法的，都要受到法律的制裁的。”就这样，曲啸的正宣传变成了负能量，他不得不中断演讲计划，匆匆结束了美国之行。他回国后大病一场，此后从演讲台上消失，淡出了人们的视线。
这个例子很能说明，当时对文革的反思何等肤浅。人们对文革的批判，基本停留在对现象的批判上，而较少触及本质。
在党的十一届六中全会形成决议以后，一般认为，文革十年动乱，是极左思想干扰的结果，给我们的历史教训是应该以经济建设为中心，大力发展社会生产力；加强民主与法制建设，依法治国。
1980年8月，在会见意大利记者奥琳埃娜?法拉奇时，邓小平说：“民主集中制被破坏了，集体领导被破坏了，否则，就不能理解为什么会爆发文化大革命。”法拉奇坦率地表示了自己的忧虑：至今看不出怎样才能避免或防止再发生诸如文化大革命这样可怕的事情。邓小平解释说，“这要从制度方面解决问题。我们过去的一些制度，实际上受了封建主义的影响，包括个人迷信、家长制或家长作风，甚至包括干部职务终身制。我们现在正在研究避免重复这种现象，准备从改革体制着手。我们这个国家有几千年封建社会的历史，缺乏社会主义的民主和社会主义的法制。现在我们要认真建立社会主义的民主制度和社会主义法制。只有这样，才能解决问题。”
邓小平认为“文化大革命是一次严重的、全局性的错误”。1981年3月，邓小平在同《历史决议》起草小组的负责同志谈话时指出：“文化大革命同以前十七年中的错误相比，是严重的、全局性的错误。它的后果极其严重，直到现在还在发生影响”。
马克思不止一次提到，事物发展到典型或完备状态（也应包括极端状态），对于认识事物及其发展某个阶段的意义，也就是说，事物的本质，往往只有在其发展完成时，才能被充分认识。正是文革，使我们认识到专制主义的极度危害。
二、文革不是凭空而来
文化大革命，第一因素是专制主义个人崇拜的盛行，第二是阶级斗争的思维。这两者结合在一起，导致了对法治的深度破坏，造成了无法无天的局面。
文革从来就不是一个孤立的事件，它的发生和发展，不是凭空而来的，是一连串错误的必然结果。
在文革期间，毛泽东成了真理的化身，他的话，“一句顶一万句”。个人崇拜发展到了登峰造极的地步。个人崇拜的兴起，可以远溯到延安时期。正是那个时期开始出现的个人崇拜和专制主义作风，在建国这样巨大的胜利之下，愈演愈烈，最后才导致极左，导致文革发生。
陈坡在他的文革前史中写道：“文革前史，就是文革起源史……文革起源于1959—— 1963年5年大饥荒的党内争议，1962年初的七千人大会是关节点。因为这次大会是60年代中共内部对大饥荒集中而全面的检讨与反省。这在《文化大革命沉思录》有所论述。而造成大饥荒的祸根是1957年底到1958年上半年的反‘反冒进’，‘反冒进’是1956-1957年八大以后中央多数的决定。反‘反冒进’打乱了原有的经济计划与安排，使毛凌驾于政治局，一言九鼎，党内高层逢迎之风兴起。八大二次会议上，周说：毛主席是真理的代表。大跃进是反‘反冒进’的直接产物。从反‘反冒进’到文革，实质上都是中共党内斗争，是党祸。毛治国理政27年，朝战3年，大饥荒5年，文革10年，27年中战争、饥荒、动乱有18年，其余9年亦是运动不断，从土改到四清，大运动套小运动，生命不息，折腾不止。所有这些给同胞带来史无前例苦难的折腾，毛的说法从来是为了六亿人民，为了中国革命与世界革命。林彪私下评毛，毛自认为代表人民，以人民自居。”
为什么毛泽东的政治思想几乎占据了党的核心地位?为什么极左的错误路线能够大行其道？最根本的原因，就是长期形成的个人崇拜，使得毛泽东拥有了无与伦比的巨大威权，一言可以置人于死生异境，到了后来发展成一句顶一万句，他本人成了真理的化身，党内外无人敢于也无人能够反对他。文革的发生，充分说明，不实行民主法治，权力不受制约，一个国家的政治生活可以荒唐到何种程度.
个人崇拜，是一种现象，其实质，也还是专制主义。说一个人是红太阳，和说他是真龙天子，有什么区别？廉价的掌声，即使潮水般响亮，也代表不了民意，免不了最终遭受历史的嘲弄。对个人崇拜保持高度警惕，其实就是警惕专制主义。几乎所有社会主义国家在实践中都出现过权力过于集中的情况，一些国家搞个人专制，比如苏联东欧发生大清洗、大镇压等政治异常现象，中国发生文化大革命，这些都严重败坏了社会主义的名声。
结束文革以后，共产党认识到了个人崇拜和继续进行阶级斗争危害，提出以经济建设为中心，一手抓改革，一手抓开放，这是对文革的拨乱反正。这一改变是历史性的。中国社会呈现出空前团结的气象，百业待兴，“破碗也能盛满水，”人民对改善生活有了盼头。
三、十年文革，亿万人互相诬陷迫害
另一个方面，阶级斗争理论也是文革重要的思想根源，并一直贯穿着整个文革期间。长期阶级斗争的巨大惯性，以及传统观念所造成的对社会主义的误解，使党内分歧蒙上了一层浓厚的路线斗争、阶级斗争色彩，以至最终导致文革的发生。
文革中，把人分为三六九等，然后用阶级斗争的思维对待他们。走资派、牛鬼蛇神、叛徒、内奸、保皇派、地富反坏右、打砸抢分子、五一六分子、臭老九、文艺黑线、教育黑线、右倾翻案风等等，名目虽然不同，但都以阶级敌人的面目被推到世人面前，成为全民公敌。有谁一旦位居其中，免不了要遭受不同程度的打击迫害。
1966年底以后，社会分裂成“保守派”和“造反派”两大阵营。两派都宣称自己是“毛泽东思想的忠实捍卫者”，而对立派别则是“反党，反社会主义，反毛泽东思想”的阶级敌人。一旦一派占据上风，则必欲置对手于死地而后快，决不手软。
文革受难者高达一亿人，其中，两派斗争的受害者，也就是是当初积极投身于文革的社会大众，占绝大多数。因为严重的流血冲突事件，很多地方留下了枉死的红卫兵墓园。在党内，斗争的残酷性也令人瞠目。夏衍仿《剃头歌》写了首《整人歌》：“闻道人须整，而今尽整人。有人皆须整，不整不成人。整自由他整，人还是我人。请看整人者，人亦整其人。”语带俏皮，语带无奈，语带黑色幽默，能看出当时斗争的残酷性以及人们不能免于恐惧的心情。因为文革期间，今天是革命阶级，明天可能就是反革命阶级。迫害和被迫害的角色转换可以在顷刻之间。所有人都提心吊胆。
1966年6月10日，毛泽东会见越南国家主席胡志明时，说了这么一段话：“这次大大小小可能要整倒几百人、几千人，特别是学术界、教育界、新闻界、出版界、文艺界、大学、中学、小学。”他说明了运动的重点目标，但大大缩小了打击范围，整倒的实际不是几百、几千人，而是几百万、上千万。
文革结束后，老作家叶圣陶在《人民日报》发表了一篇文章，“十年人祸，相识的朋友致死的有一百左右”。作家秦牧说：“我是个交游不广的人，但后来计算了一下，我握过手的相识的人，横死者竟达二十七名。从这一点推论，全国牺牲者数量之巨，也就可以想见了……这真是空前的一场浩劫，多少百万人颠连困顿，多少百万人含恨以终，多少家庭分崩离析，多少少年儿童变成了流氓恶棍，多少书籍被付之一炬，多少名胜古迹横遭破坏，多少先贤坟墓被挖掉，多少罪恶假革命之名以进行！”
文革中究竟死了多少人？说法不一，无从确定。1978年12月13日，叶剑英在中央工作会议闭幕式上说：“文革期间，全国整了1亿人，死了2000万人。”1980年邓小平对意大利女记者法拉奇说：“永远也统计不了，因为死的原因各种各样，中国又是那样广大，总之，人死了很多！”《建国以来历史政治运动事实》给出的数据是：420余万人被关押审查，172万8000余人死亡，13万5000余人被以反革命罪处决，武斗死亡23万7000余人，703万人伤残，7万1200余家庭被毁。
可以说，文革的出现，是中国几千年人治时代，开始失去道德底线和人性控制的标志。十年文革，亿万人互相诬陷迫害，如此胡编乱造的大量罪名，如此赤裸裸进行的残酷屠杀，在人类历史之中也极为罕见。
四、阶级斗争思维为什么错了
对于社会主义时期继续运用阶级斗争思维的错误，《关于建国以来党的若干历史问题的决议》分析说：“从领导思想上来看，由于我们党的历史特点，在社会主义改造基本完成以后，在观察和处理社会主义社会发展进程中出现的政治、经济、文化等方面的新矛盾新问题时，容易把已经不属于阶级斗争的问题仍然看做是阶级斗争，并且面对新条件下的阶级斗争，又习惯于沿用过去熟习而这时已不能照搬的进行大规模急风暴雨式群众性斗争的旧方法和旧经验，从而导致阶级斗争的严重扩大化。”在这里，《决议》已经明确地指明了照搬革命年代的对敌斗争方法必然导致阶级斗争扩大化。从某种意义上讲，“文化大革命”就是滥用敌我矛盾、混淆两类不同性质矛盾、将党内意见分歧放大为阶级斗争的结果。
1997年修法的时候，取消了反革命罪，改为危害国家安全罪，显示了符合常理的政权属性。作为统治阶级的意志的体现，法律不会允许危害国家的主权、领土完整和安全，不允许分裂国家、武装暴乱、颠覆政权和推翻现有制度等“革命性”行为。
无产阶级专政下继续革命的理论，根本错误在于，误认为在社会主义制度建立以后，还存在着资产阶级，还存在着整个社会范围内的阶级对抗和阶级斗争，因而还需要进行一个阶级推翻一个阶级的政治大革命。这是一种典型的敌对思维，错误地将阶级对抗和阶级斗争扩大到社会主义社会，从而导致了严重的后果。
文化大革命中被当作修正主义或资本主义批判的许多东西，实际上正是马克思主义原理和社会主义原则，其中很多是毛泽东自己过去提出或支持过的。“没有安定团结，就没有一切”，“过去我们已经吃了十来年的苦头，再乱，人民吃不消，人民也不答应。”邓小平所说的安定团结，正是对阶级斗争理论的拨乱返正，以及对经济建设的渴望。
文革之后，国门渐渐打开，中国人发现自己在轰轰烈烈搞政治运动的时候，世界上很多国家却在努力发展经济，一些国家和地区经济开始腾飞，比如像亚洲的“四小龙”，中国由于搞政治运动失去了很多发展机会，与发达国家的距离拉大了。坊间传言邓小平曾反思：二战以后，跟着美国走的国家，都富了；而跟着苏联走的国家，都受穷。这可能也是一般老百姓心中想说，却不敢说出口的话。
五、民主政治是新型国家建立的逻辑基础
我们为什么叫中华人民共和国？共和的目的，就是要结束专制王朝的更替，建立现代新型国家。而民主政治，正是现代新型国家建立的逻辑基础。中华人民共和国第一届人民政府的建立，正是第一次政治协商会议的结果，在当时的历史条件下，这一定程度上体现了“统治者的权力来自被统治者的同意”。这在中国具有划时代的意义。什么叫划时代？用徐友渔的话说，就是国家取代了朝代。
王朝政治应该到此而终，中国的历史应该翻开全新的一页，新政权的主要任务，应该放在弥合社会创伤、进行制度建设和经济建设上。但是毛泽东没有，他仍然以阶级斗争为纲。中共八大在1956年确定了扩大民主、加強法制、集中精力搞建设的方针路线，到1957年却反其道而行之；而对于1957年后发展起来的错误，当时党内外都已有所认识，党内也存在着与之对立的正确发展趋势，但都没有阻止住“左”的错误发展。而且，每一次纠“左”的努力，都导致了它的反弹和再次膨胀。
暴风骤雨般革命时代造就的绝大多数领导人，习惯于以那个时代的方式思考问题，用那个时代的办法来解决问题。他们很难否定自我，放弃传统的斗争思维和革命方式，从新的角度来认识和理解现代社会。神力和武力为政权提供合法性的时代，已经过去了。现代文明政权的合法性，不是来自于枪杆子，只能来自于民意和民心。权为民所赋，说的就是这个道理。
这种认识的局限性，体现在对“以党治国”的迷恋上。“国家的一切决定、命令和法律，都必须得到党的相应指示”，造成“党超过国家，高踞于国家之上”。党和国家的关系发生扭曲，极易产生专制主义，阻碍中国社会向现代文明社会前进。
华东政法大学的童之伟教授撰文说，近年来我国政法领域发生了不少引入注目的的争论，其中包括党与法的相对位置之争、政改前进还是倒退之争、严厉压制言论是否必要之争、宪政正当与否之争，等等。这些争论看起来是孤立的，实际上都源于治国理念内部要素间关系的紧张。说得更具体些，就是源于“以党治国”的传统治国理政方略，同中共十五大之后“实行依法治国，建设社会主义法治国家”新方略的冲突。
之所以造成这种局面，与当初改革启动时的先天缺陷有关。清华大学孙立平教授认为，改革的启动，是几股力量合在一起的结果。这当中有民众改善经济状况的现实要求，有知识分子改变现状的理想，但其实更有力量的，是文革中失势者重归权力中心的要求。后者又有两部分人，一是想回到文革前的17年，一种是想借此走向一种新的文明。80年代初期改革即在这部分人的掌控之下了。不过，能够和当时形成对比的，是文革的荒唐岁月，所以掌握权力者充满自信，这种自信造成了80年代的开明。然而开明的表象掩盖了改革的缺陷，即没有一种真正的走向新文明的价值目标。
深化改革的方向，一言以蔽之，就是用依法治国来取代以党治国。
中世纪和现代社会的分野，野蛮社会和文明社会的分野，就在于专制还是民主，在于权力的合法来源，合法使用，合法交接。在合法的前提下，社会发展处于可控的相对确定的范围之内。这种确定性，可以使身处其间的人们，免于莫名的恐惧和焦虑，从而获得身心的自由。中国共产党人从一开始，就是为争取民主自由，为告别专制和落后，为建立文明和先进的现代国家而奋斗，我们不能成为我们最初所反对的那种人。
六、不能把法律当统治工具
1955年1月间，刘少奇曾经说：“在宪法颁布以后，我们必须加强法制，要善于利用法制，利用国家政权和社会群众的力量来开展阶级斗争。我们的法律不是为了约束自己，而是用来约束敌人，打击和消灭敌人的。”1955年7月间，刘少奇又在北戴河向最高人民检察院负责人指示说：“我们的法律是要保护人民去同敌人斗争，而不能约束革命人民的手足。如果哪条法律束缚了我们自己的手足，就要考虑废除这条法律。”
1955年7月间，刘少奇说：“检察院当前第一条任务，就是要保证把该捕的反革命分子迅速逮捕起来。宪法已经规定了，逮捕和起诉都要经过检察院。如果不经过检察院批准，捕人是违法的。现在党要搞社会主义革命，要把那些破坏社会主义革命的反革命分子抓起来，所以检察院要很快把批捕、起诉全部担负起来。党委决定要捕的，检察院要闭着眼睛盖章。这样做也可能有错，这在党内可以讲清楚，但对外，都要由检察院出面担起来。……如果检察院不做党的挡箭牌，民主人士就会利用这点来反对党，结果可以说等于是检察院反党。”他还再三强调：“检察院必须掌握在党的手里，这个机关同公安机关一样，同样是党和人民同反革命分子作斗争的锐利武器，必须掌握在自己人手里。必须保证检察机关在组织上绝对纯洁。”
从刘少奇的上述指示和讲话来看，他是用阶级斗争的思维来看待法律和法制的，而且明显带有党权、政权高于法权的倾向。一旦认同党权、政权高于法权，那么法律就只有工具属性而没有价值属性，进而成为可有可无的东西。
陈云对新闻立法的反对，说得更加直截了当：“在国民党统治时期，制定了一个新闻法，我们共产党人仔细研究它的字句，抓它的辫子，钻它的空子。现在我们当权，我看还是不要新闻法好，免得人家钻我们空子。没有法，我们主动，想怎样控制就怎样控制。”
可见，在当时的认识里，法律只是实行统治的工具，而不是能把权力关进去的笼子。这或许就是文革前三十年，法律制度建设几乎一篇空白的根本原因所在。
制度建设的成本可能会很高昂，在极端的条件下，甚至需要流血牺牲。但是一旦建立起来，维护社会的成本就会大大降低。以党治国，必然会带来党大于法、权大于法的后果，再好的制度也会沦为摆设，从而妨碍法治的实施。
新加坡国立大学的郑永年教授在一篇文章中说到：“中国反腐败的制度是世界上所有国家最多的。新加坡只有一个反贪局，香港只有一个廉政公署，为什么这两个社会很清廉？中国反腐败制度有多少，党有纪检，政府有预防腐败局、反贪局，人大有，政协有，每一个大学都有，但是往往可以看到这些反腐败的人是最腐败的。我以前看北京市副市长王宝森，他是北京反贪局的局长，他自己最腐败，这样的情况哪行？所以王岐山提出一个思路就是先治标后治本，我是非常赞同的。如果从制度来说，也不是说制度越多就越好，中国的制度已经太多了，关键是什么样的制度。中国的知识分子说中国的腐败就是因为一党制，因为太集权。我说不是这样的。中国的内部分权太多了，党内那么多的正副职位，那么多的反腐败机构，但谁也不负责，反而给腐败的人很多的机会。到底谁负责？新加坡很简单，如果出现腐败了，就是反贪局负责，不能把责任推卸给其它什么机构。香港也是一样。”
郑永年教授看到了现象，但是没有触及根本，得出了相反的结论。他认为，反腐制度不在多，关键看谁负责，让腐败官员去操作照样会腐败。而我们认为，这恰恰就是以党治国的后果，是制度没有权大的结果。当然，有一点他说得是对的，他强调了人的因素：清廉的人去建立的制度才叫好的制度，腐败的人建立起的制度还是不好的制度。但即使是好制度，如果党大于法、权大于法，充其量也是花瓶而已。想想当年毛泽东作为党主席手举党章要求发言，和刘少奇在文革中作为国家主席手举宪法要求权利的情形相比，有何霄壤之别?
七、以开放心态对待各种社会力量
以党治国的另一个后果，就是拒绝甚至压制其他社会力量的参与，这使得执政党难以成为问题的解决者，而成为问题本身。
中国共产党拥有八千多万党员，是世界上最大的政治组织。共产党是改革开放的主体力量，但不是唯一力量。改革开放三十多年后，中国社会的其他力量，也得到了一定程度的发展，社会上开始出现不同的利益诉求，国内矛盾进入多发期。这些不同的社会力量无疑会给党造成一定的压力，但是应该认识到，这也是进行自身建设、避免僵化的动力来源。
执政党的自信，不可能也不应该建立在打压和钳制其他社会力量上面。恩格斯曾经指出，社会发展是各种力量合力的结果，一个好的社会，应该是不同社会力量公平博弈的结果，而不是一家独大、笼盖四野的结果。一个文明的社会，绝对不应该是你死我活的社会，而应该是各种社会力量合理相处的社会。
民主是社会主义核心价值之一。民主不应该只是一个口号，而应该是精神，更应该是制度安排。民主最根本的体现，是宪政框架。是否能够把执政行为置于宪法的框架之内，是民主与否的试金石。可以说，宪法，是我们这个社会的最小公倍数，是按照全体社会成员的意志订立的契约，是国家治理和社会稳定大局的基石。最小公倍数，才可能构建社会共同体。既然是共同体，就需要各种社会力量的平等参与。不应反对、限制、打击中国社会其他也想在推动中国社会发展中起作用的社会组织和力量。其他社会力量的参与，不会带来共同体的解体，只会进一步巩固共同体，从而带来社会的稳定。
不同社会力量的参与也意味着责任的分担，执政党把一切都抗在自己身上，总有一天会不堪重负。除了共产党外，没有其他政党与社会组织的发展、活动，对中国来说不是好事。长期共存，互相监督，荣辱与共，同舟共济，不应当只限于八个民主党派，八个民主党派也不能只是陪衬。不能像过去国民党一样，搞一个政党、一个主义、一个领袖。应当容忍、允许、支持、鼓励其他正常和社会组织在宪法规定的范围内活动、发展、参政议政。
民主政治是不同于专制政治的新形态的政治，它以民众的选举过程中的噪杂喧闹，来代替了暴力屠杀的血腥，“以数人头代替打破人头”；民主能驯化权力，而不是不要权力。它是要把权力放在笼子里，不让它随便出来伤人。而放在笼子的权力，对于掌权者本身也是最安全的，因为它免除了其最大的威胁：被另一种暴力取代的可能性。如此，才能告别政治野蛮，迈入政治文明，实现共同体的长治久安和政治安全。
民主不是对既有体制的剥夺，而是对既有体制的保护。危言耸听地警告当政者民主如何如何坏，实行民主会失去权力、失去利益等说法，毫无历史观和现实性，只能使之离时代潮流越来越远。只有实行民主政治才能保卫公民的自由，实现国家的长治久安，在国际政治中实现永久和平的美好理想。
八、结束以党治国从依法治国开始
童之伟教授认为，“实行依法治国，建设社会主义法治国家”与“以党治国”，是完全对立的治国理政方略。改革开放前，执政基本上采用的是“以党治国”方式。改革开放后，开始逐步向“实行依法治国，建设社会主义法治国家”的方向转变。
揆诸历史，共产党首次从理论上肯定“依法治国，建设社会主义法治国家”，是中共十五大的事情。此举标志着中共治国理政方略的根本性创新，同时也是对“以党治国”执政方式的直接否定。十五大后，全国人大随后修改宪法，在宪法第5条中规定：“中华人民共和国实行依法治国，建设社会主义法治国家。”在此之前，中共党章已具体规定了党必须在宪法和法律的范围内活动的原则，并在十五大用党章修正案的形式，规定了后来写入宪法的依法治国、建设法治国家方略。
其实，此前宪法第5条的下列规定，已经在不小程度上表达了依法治国建设法治国家的要求：国家维护社会主义法制的统一和尊严。一切国家机关和武装力量、各政党和各社会团体、各企业事业组织都必须遵守宪法和法律。一切违反宪法和法律的行为，必须予以追究。任何组织或者个人都不得有超越宪法和法律的特权。
“以党治国”与“实行依法治国，建设社会主义法治国家”，虽然看起来它们两者也有些可以并存的地方，但总体而言是严重对立、无法兼容的。“以党治国”的典型表现，是党的机构与国家机关不分、党产与国家财产不分，权力过分集中，且以党代国（政）、以党权代法等等，这些与“依法治国，建设社会主义法治国家”不可能相容。
真正“实行依法治国，建设社会主义法治国家”，必须用宪法、法律明确党权范围，规范党权的行使程序，并从法律关系主体、机构、财产、人事等方面分开党与国。万万不能举“依法治国，建设社会主义法治国家”之旗，行 “以党治国”之实。
诚然，一切新制度都脱胎于旧制度，旧制度必然会在新制度中留有辙痕。改革路径的选择免不了历史的作用；政治制度和意识形态的产生与演变，受过去的影响，同时它们也限制了当前改革路径方式的选择。不赞成以党治国，并不意味着不赞成加强共产党的领导。
执政党的领导，主要体现在政治上路线方针政策的领导，组织上重要干部人事的选拔、举荐、决定，以及思想宣传、意识形态工作的引领，并不是要包办代替国家机关，即人民权力机关和行政、司法、检察机关的工作。党的领导有宪法依据，也必须依法领导。党通过立法或修法行为，将自己的意志转化为国家意志，让法律成为包括执政党自己在内的全体社会成员的行为规范。虽然法外有党规，但党规只是执政党内的规矩。在法治时代，我们应该在全社会强调行为规则，即法律制度和社会行为的通则，这是法治社会全体成员包括执政党成员在内的行为准绳。
中国是有宪法的国家，一部合乎全体中国人民利益并且能够切实实施的宪法，就是我们所要寻找的最小公倍数。前一段时间，政府官员在就职时面对宪法宣誓的消息，不时见诸报端，这是一个很好的信号。结束以党治国，就应该从依法治国开始，而宪法，是最大的法。把权力关进笼子，就是要把所有社会力量，包括执政党，置于宪法的权威之下。
高大伟 David Cowhig's Translation Blog 
Pingback: Reflections on the Cultural Revolution: A Ten Thousand Character Petition | 高大伟 在美国华盛顿人的博客
Pingback: 2012: Symposium on Mi Hedou’s Red Guard Generation Book | 高大伟 David Cowhig's Translation Blog