Font size: 
A rare, anonymous article has been circulating online, which Chinese netizens believe is the work of an early, senior member of the Chinese Communist Party, urging the government to adopt fundamental political ethics and principles. It calls for a multi-party system with real elections; for control of the army to be shifted from the party to the state; for the abandonment of propaganda as a policy tool.
It calls on the party and government to be accountable for their history and their actions, to face up to public opinion and correct wrong policies that are widely criticized by the people.
The article refers to the CCP’s failure during the past 60 years to implement “fundamental political ethics and principles.” Its tone indicates the writer may be a retired senior party cadre. Many believe it is the work of Wan Li, who was China’s vice premier from 1980-1988 and chairman of the National People's Congress from 1988-1993.
Wan, at the age of 93, is the only one of the CCP patriarchs still alive. He had been close to Zhao Ziyang, who was general secretary of the Communist Party until he lost his position in 1989 for supporting the democracy movement that ended tragically in Tiananmen Square.
Wan shared many of Zhao’s political views and was considered a “could-be” reformer. But because he was out of the country when the top leadership was planning the military crackdown, some analysts have said his political attitude was “unclear.”
Wan never opposed the positions of paramount leader Deng Xiaoping or Premier Li Peng, who led the crackdown on the democracy movement. But that might be because he had already lost his influence on Chinese politics, some experts have said.
The mysterious article begins with the statement that in many respects the CCP has not changed in 60 years. The most fundamental fact is that the party still rules the country. The party’s top organs of power – its Central Office, Central Organization Department and Central Propaganda Department, for example – don’t even have signs outside their offices, giving them the aura of illegal, underground organizations, the author complains.
The author describes China as the party’s state, rather than the CCP being the state’s party. The concept of party leaders as state leaders has not changed. Financially, there is no separation between the party’s funds and the state treasury, he points out.
Likewise, the Chinese army of more than 2 million troops is still called the People’s Liberation Army and does not function as a proper state military force, the author says. Its top commander is the head of the CCP; the troops take their orders from the party rather than the state.
In 60 years, no competitive election system has been implemented even within the party, let alone within the state, the author comments.
At its founding, the CCP claimed to represent Chinese peasants and workers. After 1949, it claimed to represent all the Chinese people. But there is no proper political procedure through which the party gains the right to represent the people, the author points out. The CCP controls the election mechanism so that real public opinion cannot be expressed, he says.
The people’s opinions are the real “infrastructure” of a country’s political system, he writes, and the major criteria for measuring a country’s progress and civilization. He criticizes party cadres who boast of their accomplishments while failing to account for their mistakes.
The author reminds the CCP leadership that the party made many beautiful promises to the Chinese people and to the world, such as democracy and freedom, especially in the early days. Those promises were stated by former Chairman Mao Zedong and published frequently in the 1930s and 40s, but were deleted in the 1950s and 60s, the author states.
By removing those statements and declarations the party betrayed its promises, failed to respect its own history, made its wartime sacrifices in vain and defied political ethics, the writer says. Consequently, the foundations of the party’s rule turned out to be built on sand.
This rare critique was accessible on the Internet in China for only a short while. By deleting it, however, the authorities could not stop its circulation by email or posting on overseas sites, or the heated debates it has stirred on online discussion sites.
The Chinese authorities have remained silent about this so far, and the primary suspect, Wan Li, is apparently continuing life as usual without any disturbance. This in itself could be seen as a kind of progress, compared to the usual experience of those who dare to criticize in writing the sacrosanct institution of the Chinese Communist Party.
Analysts say this article, and the interest it has sparked, reflect a growing desire for democratic reforms both within and without the CCP. The mixed response of the authorities in deleting the article but failing to prosecute its author may be a reflection of the ambiguity many within the leadership feel about what it has to say.
