Amendments to the CPC Constitution
In the run-up to the critical 18th Communist Party of China (CPC) Congress, Chinese and foreign media organizations are abuzz with speculation about the possible removal of references to Mao Zedong Thought and Leninism in the Party’s constitution. Should this happen, it could be an epochal break from the Party’s ideological strictures, ushering in the next phase of crucial economic and political reforms. To people unacquainted with the arcane workings of CPC ideological politics, such seemingly subtle alterations can be of paramount importance.
The ‘double –eighteen’ as it is being called (the 18th Party constitutional amendment at the 18th Party Congress) is expected to elevate ‘scientific development’, credited to General Secretary Hu Jintao, to become the guiding thinking of the CPC, deduces Hong Kong’s Ta Kung Pao. The concepts of ‘scientific development’ and ‘harmonious society’, both attributed to Hu, were written into the constitution at the 17th Congress 5 years ago. Previous amendments had enshrined ‘Deng Xiaoping Theory’ and former General Secretary Jiang Zemin’s ‘Three Represents’ in the constitution, not to mention the landmark provision allowing entrepreneurs to join the Party.
Relatedly, there are indications that instead of listing the ‘theoretical contributions’ of Deng, Jiang and Hu individually, they may all be encompassed in the phrase ‘theoretical system of socialism with Chinese characteristics’. A recent article in the People’s Daily noted that at the 90th anniversary of the founding of the CPC, General Secretary Hu emphasized the guiding importance of such a ‘theoretical system’. Chen Xuewei, a Party affairs expert at the Central Party School, said setting the ‘theoretical system’ as guiding thinking does away with the awkward tradition of adding a new theory each time a general-secretary is replaced.
But, the most important amendment, should it happen, is deleting references to Mao Zedong Thought and Leninism and incorporating them into a general reference to Marxism. This would be the most significant revision since the four cardinal principles were dictated by Deng Xiaoping and the first time since 1945 that Mao Zedong Thought no longer stood front and center in the constitution.
An article in the Singapore’s Straits Times suggests that it took immense courage and determination to even table the proposal, given the strongly vocal community of Maoists and neo-Leftists within and without the Party. The hand of the current leadership may also have been forced by the recent Bo Gu Kailai murder scandal that implicated her husband Bo Xilai, who during his tenure as Chongqing Party Chief had launched a prominent Maoist ‘red’ revival campaign in a bid to secure a place within the Standing Committee of the Politburo. Removal would also signify the ultimate triumph of Dengist pragmatism over Maoist orthodoxy, plowing away the single biggest obstacle against deepening economic and political reforms under in-coming General Secretary Xi Jinping.
Zheng Yongnian, Director of the East Asian Institute at the National University of Singapore commented: “Before the fall of Bo Xilai, the direction was not so clear…Deleting Mao Zedong Thought hints that China’s new leadership has selected a path for the future that has become clearer now, that is, a little less Maoism and a little more Dengism…Actually, only leftists are concerned about this issue; most young people could care less. For them, memories of Mao on longer exist.”
Yet, contrarians such as Wang Zhengxu, senior research fellow at the University of Nottingham’s School of Contemporary Chinese Studies, insist it is simple impossible to delete Mao and Lenin at this time. In 2003, in commemoration of the 110th anniversary of Mao’s birth, Hu Jintao underscored that at all times and in all circumstances, “we must raise high the banner of Mao Zedong Thought”.
Another possible amendment, albeit smaller in the scope of things, would exert a major impact on the direction of China’s future development – ‘building ecological civilization’. Party historians point to official reports of Politburo meetings over the recent past that have frequently invoked the phrase “fully implementing the building of socialist economics, politics, culture, society, and ecological civilization”. This, they say, bodes well for environmental policy in the face of major challenges in the coming decades.
Finally, reforms to central institutions and organizations of the CPC are also pressing. Gu Haibing, a professor at the Remin University of China, questions the utility of the Party Secretariat when the Politburo and its Standing Committee make all major decisions. The constitution also fails to address ballooning CPC central bureaucracies. For instance, the functions of the Central Bureau of Compilation and Translation which are merely technical can be readily taken up by non-Party institutions.