Prisoner of the State: The Secret Journal of Premier Zhao Ziyang (27 page)

T
here were two main issues in preparing for the 13th Party Congress: the first was drafting the Political Report, the other was filling leadership positions. The Political Report was to be drafted by the group organized before [Hu] Yaobang resigned. When he stepped down, its work came to a standstill. I gathered the group together and assigned Bao Tong as its leader, to work under my supervision.

As early as May 21, I wrote to Deng Xiaoping regarding ideas for drafting the Political Report. I proposed using the concept the “initial stage of socialism” as the theoretical basis of the report. The report would systematically cover the theory, principles, and tasks of building socialism with Chinese characteristics. Beyond that, it would emphasize the two basic points defined by the Third Plenum of the 11th Party Congress [in 1978]: upholding the Four Cardinal Principles and upholding reform to reenergize the economy. The report quickly won the approval of Deng, who said the outline was great. Because of the improved political climate, the drafting process went relatively smoothly.

I would like to comment on two phrases in the Political Report: “initial stage of socialism” and “one central focus, two basic points.”

Many people were under the impression that I first coined the phrase “initial stage of socialism” in the 13th Party Congress report. That’s not accurate. As early as the Sixth Plenum of the 11th Party Congress [in 1981], a resolution on historical issues contained the phrase: “Though the socialist system of our country still remains in an initial stage of development….” Hu Yaobang in his Political Report at the 12th Party Congress [in 1982] reiterated that “the socialist system of our country still remains in an initial stage of development.”

Yet these two assessments had not elaborated on the meaning of the phrase or its implications. Instead, they emphasized the following viewpoint: “There is no doubt that we have already established a socialist system and entered the socialist stage of society. Any views that deny such a reality are incorrect.” In other words, the phrase was intended to indicate that although we were still in the initial stage, we had already established a socialist system and should be able to create an advanced socialist spiritual civilization while building the material civilization. The purpose was to answer doubts some people had about whether our nation was socialist, or whether we were pursuing socialism.

At the Central Committee’s Theoretical Discussion of 1979, an important question was raised as the meeting was reviewing leftist mistakes the Party had made. Namely, since China’s past was semifeudal and semicolonial, once the revolution had been victorious, were conditions right for the establishment of a socialist system? Should we proceed with a “new democracy”? The Central Committee was critical of such doubts at the time.

Statements about the “initial stage of socialism” were meant to help counter such doubts. But the concept had not yet attracted much attention. Then, in September 1986, the Central Committee’s “Resolution Regarding the Establishment of a Socialist Spiritual Civilization” said that since our nation was still at the “initial stage of socialism,” we could allow various types of economic elements under the dominant system of public ownership. We would allow a portion of the populace to get rich first. This was intended to make a connection between the assessment that we were still in the “initial stage of socialism” and the policy of reform we were pursuing.

This document was mainly focused on the “Establishment of a Socialist Spiritual Civilization” and it did not elaborate further on the issue. I don’t remember any follow-up discussions on the phrase those first three times it was used; nor was there much public attention paid to it. The phrase only triggered strong domestic and international reactions when it appeared in the 13th Party Congress Political Report, as the theoretical basis for carrying out reform.

As I started to organize the drafting of the 13th Party Congress Political Report, my vision was to further advance major policies and strategies for reform, but also to formulate a theoretical basis for carrying it all out. Since the reforms had been put into practice after the Third Plenum of the 11th Party Congress, productivity had grown, the speed of development had increased, people’s living standards had risen, and our nation had become much stronger. These were widely accepted facts.

Yet what was the theoretical basis for carrying out reform? There had been no explanation, and many cadres and citizens were concerned. On the one hand, they did their best to support reform and to actively carry it out, but on the other hand they did not feel secure, fearing that policy could swing in another direction. Reform needed to be powerfully backed up with theory.

In practice, the reform of those years was, to be frank, the rejection and correction of the planned economy, the exclusivity of public ownership, and the single method of wealth distribution that had been enforced since the 1950s. The practice of reform had proven that this had been correct and necessary. It had also proven that the practice of implementing orthodox socialist principles in the style of the Soviet Union was excessive for China’s level of socioeconomic development and productivity. This was a leftist mistake. Only if we restored appropriate policies and approaches more suitable for China could we save China. This was the essence of the matter.

Nevertheless, we had practiced socialism for more than thirty years. For those intent on observing orthodox socialist principles, how were we to explain this? One possible explanation was that socialism had been implemented too early and that we needed to retrench and reinitiate democracy. Another was that China had implemented socialism without having first experienced capitalism, and so a dose of capitalism needed to be reintroduced.

Neither argument was entirely unreasonable, but they had the potential of sparking major theoretical debates, which could have led to confusion. And arguments of this kind could never have won political approval. In the worst-case scenario, they could even have caused reform to be killed in its infancy.

While planning for the 13th Party Congress report in the spring of 1987, I spent a lot of time thinking about how to resolve this issue. I came to believe that the expression “initial stage of socialism” was the best approach, and not only because it accepted and cast our decades-long implementation of socialism in a positive light; at the same time, because we were purportedly defined as being in an “initial stage,” we were totally freed from the restrictions of orthodox socialist principles. Therefore, we could step back from our previous position and implement reform policies more appropriate to China.

Most important, it was not a new statement. As I mentioned above, it had already been quietly accepted without controversy in the resolutions of the Sixth Plenum and the 12th Party Congress. It was now merely being used as the basis for the theoretical articulation of reform. It would not provoke fierce debate and should be easy to accept.

The first time I revealed these ideas in a public context was at a Central Committee Secretariat meeting in May 1987. I said that we must pay attention to the assessment that we are in an “initial stage of socialism.” All policy issues of reform could be resolved in accordance with this.

Later I formally asked the drafting group to use “initial stage of socialism” as the theoretical foundation for the 13th Party Congress report. Then I wrote a letter to the Politburo Standing Committee and the Five-Person Group about this approach. This was the same letter I mentioned above that I sent to Deng Xiaoping outlining the idea. Deng Xiaoping, Chen Yun, and Li Xiannian all replied or phoned to express their approval.

The basic approach for building socialism with Chinese characteristics was embodied in three things: making economic development the central focus, upholding the Four Cardinal Principles, and upholding the Reform and Open-Door Policy. They were the three components that formed the general direction after the Third Plenum. During the process of drafting the report, it was proposed that we sum up these priorities with the colloquial phrase “one central focus, two basic points.”

The idea of making economic development our “central focus” had already been asserted at the Third Plenum of the 11th Party Congress in 1978: “From this day forward, we renounce class struggle as the central focus, and instead take up economic development as our central focus.” This had been reiterated in Party documents and speeches.

The concept of “Upholding the Four Cardinal Principles and Upholding Reform” had also been consistently emphasized since the Theoretical Discussion Conference of 1978 and the Third Plenum of the 11th Party Congress, but never before were these three things connected together as the major components of the Party’s general direction. Upholding the Four Cardinal Principles and upholding reform had already appeared as two separate components in the draft of the “Resolution to Build a Spiritual Civilization” in 1986. Most people had the impression that the principle of the Third Plenum was reform. I proposed a revision to the principle of the Third Plenum of the 11th Party Congress so that it would include the Four Cardinal Principles; we should not give attention only to one side while overlooking the other. The phrase “two basic points” had not yet come into use.

The first time I formally stated that these two principles were interconnected and couldn’t exist without the other was in my speech at the Celebration Assembly of the Spring Festival on January 30, 1987. Before this, I had used the same language in my talk with leaders of the Hungarian Communist Party on January 19, 1987, which had been released to the press.

The intention of my speech at the Celebration Assembly was to ease fears that the Anti-Liberalization Campaign would reverse the principles set by the Third Plenum. In order to extinguish such fears, I said that the Third Plenum had included both aspects: the Four Cardinal Principles and reform. Anti-liberalization had a specific meaning: to oppose the abandonment of the Four Cardinal Principles. Therefore, the campaign did not imply any change to the Third Plenum principle and was in fact meant to implement it more thoroughly. This time, the “two basic points” were meant to underline that the Party’s principle defined by the Third Plenum of the 11th Party Congress had also included the Four Cardinal Principles, so we should not talk only about reform.

To my surprise, my speech at the Celebration Assembly on the “two basic points” was opposed by some people, particularly those who were relatively conservative or rigid in their thinking. They said we could not set the Four Cardinal Principles on the same level as reform, making them equally “two basic points.” The Four Cardinal Principles were the basis and reform merely the tactic and means.

I mentioned above that a cadre, Lu Zhichao in the Department of Propaganda, even assigned the educational chief of the Central Party School to convene a meeting to discuss the idea of the “two basic points,” with the intention of criticizing the formulation. This campaign caused quite a commotion.

I was compelled to criticize this opinion at the May 13 meeting of the departments of propaganda, theoretical research, and media, along with the Central Party School. And earlier, at the meeting of the Central Committee Secretariat and the Five-Person Group, I stated that we were discussing not the direction of socialism in general, but rather the direction of socialism with Chinese characteristics. The Four Cardinal Principles provided the basic principle and foundation of our political system while reform was our general approach. Both were foundations on which we based our policies. Taking one as a principle and the other as a means was in fact a way to detract from the importance of reform. Without the approach set by the Third Plenum, with only the Four Cardinal Principles, where would socialism with Chinese characteristics be? The Four Cardinal Principles continue to be one of our basic principles, even as reform has been added.

After my speech of May 13, attacks on the “two basic points” were more restrained. At that point, the phrase “one central focus, two basic points” could be listed together in the Political Report of the 13th Party Congress as the three basic components of our general approach. The colloquial formula “one central focus, two basic points” was coined by Bao Tong and the rest of the drafting group during the writing process. Deng Xiaoping was impressed with this phrase, and said on many occasions, “This phrase, ‘one central focus, two basic points’ is very well put!”

There was still the question of political reform. Deng Xiaoping had said some very positive things about reforming China’s political leadership system in the past, and in 1986 even proposed proceeding with political reform. However, during the drafting of the Political Report for the 13th Party Congress, he repeatedly warned, “No matter what, there should not be anything resembling a ‘tripartite separation of powers’” and even said there should not be even “a trace of it.” During this period, when he was receiving foreign guests, he said things like “a tripartite separation of powers means each is restricting the other” or “such a system is inefficient and cannot get things done.”

Frankly speaking, if there was anything new in the area of political reform in the Political Report for the 13th Party Congress, it certainly was not because of Deng. On the contrary, he did everything possible to eliminate any traces of congressional politics and checks and balances in the Political Report. He made such comments every time we sent a draft to him for review. Even when our report no longer contained any of those things, he still repeated his warning each time. If not for Deng’s intervention, the contents on political reform could have been written much better.