China's Trapped Transition_ The Limits of Developmental Autocracy - Minxin Pei [31]
Political Reform: Content, Goals, and Dilemmas
The deliberations on political reform by the Chinese elites of all ideological stripes showed that they all recognized the fundamental source of the inefficiency of the existing political system: the party-state in general, and the overcentralization of administrative power in the party in particular. In Zhao’s vision, the first and most crucial step of political reform was the separation of the party from the state. This would be followed by inner-party democracy, which should be implemented at the very top of the party’s leadership (the Politburo Standing Committee and the Politburo). For the task force, dominated by the liberals, dangzheng fenkai,the separation of the party from the state, meant divesting some of the party’s power to the state, thus strengthening the state while improving the authority and leadership of the party.19 Zhao believed dangzheng fenkai would solve the problem of yidang daizheng, or “replacing the government with the party.” In practical terms, Zhao thought dangzheng fenkaimeant that the party would cease to issue orders or handle administrative affairs directly.20 Implicitly, the separation would most likely create institutional checks and balances because the divestiture of the party’s power would lead to a limited form of separation of powers in a one-party regime—a view shared by Zhao himself, who affirmed dangzheng fenkaias “division of power between the party and the government.” Indeed, institutionally, dangzheng fenkai would consist, according to Zhao, of three aspects: separating the party from the government, separating the party from the NPC, and separating the NPC from the government.21
Despite the lofty expectations the liberals had for dangzheng fenkai and the importance they attributed to it, only a small number of specific institutional reforms were proposed. Wen Jiabao, the director of the Central Committee’s General Office who became the premier in 2003, was asked to head a separate group to work on the issue of dangzheng fenhai. But the report he produced was described by Zhao as “empty” and lacking specific measures. Even for Bao, the most liberal member of the group, the only specific measures of dangzheng fenkai were abolishing the positions of the deputy party secretaries responsible for specific policy areas, reforming the party’s organization departments and propaganda departments, and separating the party’s disciplinary committee from the procuratorate and courts. Another measure of dangzheng fenkaiwas the strengthening of the NPC. Bao thought that the key was to strengthen the NPC Standing Committee by raising the number of committee members to more than 250 and by establishing specialized committees within the Standing Committee.22
Promoting inner-party democracy was considered a crucial step of political reform. Zhao believed that instituting inner-party democracy would be the key to establishing social democracy. He called for more inner-party democracy at the central level, perhaps reflecting his own difficult political position as a result of the concentration of decision-making power in the hands of Deng. Zhao would have liked to give the full Central Committee more power.23 Other measures proposed by the task force to democratize the party included instituting a majority rule in decision making; increasing the transparency of the party’s activities; strengthening collective leadership; holding competitive elections within the party; and protecting the freedom of speech within the party. Institutionally, the task force recommended reforming the party congress by establishing a system of permanent party deputies and convening the party congress annually, instead of once every five years.24
Another sensitive issue discussed by the task force was how to undertake democratic reforms under the slogan of “building socialist democracy.” Zhao believed that democratization was inevitable, although he thought that Mikhail Gorbachev’s glasnost and perestroika were “very risky” strategies. In implementing democratic