The transformation process of social structure revealed by the explosion of "leading groups"

In recent years, a large number of "leading groups" have emerged in addition to China's existing government mechanisms. Some people think that this is a "group mechanism" with Chinese characteristics. Even those who hold this view do not deny that this is more of a crisis emergency mechanism. If the normal government mechanism can prohibit it, why bother to add such a mechanism?

The characteristic of the group mechanism is that "there are many temples above, and there must be counterparts below". Therefore, for each team set up at the highest level of the central government, the provincial, city, county, and even township levels must be equipped with corresponding teams and specialized personnel. Originally, from the day the CCP established its government, it has faced the constant problem of bloated institutions. Institutional reform and streamlined administration are the oaths of almost every government. Since 1949, major institutional reforms have been carried out at least thirteen times, with an average of once every five years. An institutional reform process usually takes three or four years, shrinking and rebounding at the same time. After one round of reforms, preparations for the next round begin. . In a reciprocating cycle, the organization is always getting more and more bloated. In this case, why do we need to "reform the organization"?

First of all, the goal of institutional reform is to pass government decrees. The so-called overstaffing is still a trivial matter. As long as power can flow unimpeded, no matter how bloated the institution is, it is not a big problem. The problem is that no matter how many people in the government, when the political will of the leaders is issued, no one will implement it. Do leaders have no "authority"? Or is "authority" itself increasingly disrespected?

Tocqueville once observed the decline of "authority" and the rise of "opinion" in American society. This separation of "authority" and "opinion" is precisely the transitional feature of human society when it enters modern society in the historical process of "identity equality". In a hierarchical society and an authority structure, the object of obedience by people is the authority of the superior, not his opinion. As long as the authority says, no matter what the opinion is, it will be accepted. This is of course the ideal structure for a "leader". However, the emperors of all dynasties in China failed to realize this ideal. The Chinese Communists have learned the lessons of history and implemented a "democratic centralism" that reconciles "authority" and "opinion". Democratic centralism is a system with a distinct transformational color. On the one hand, it admits that what circulates in it is "opinion"; on the other hand, in this system, "opinion" is not as important as "authority". This design, which seems to have made the greatest effort to reconcile, will still face the threat of people becoming more autonomous and paying more and more attention to their own "opinions" in the evolution of society.

Within the ruling group, if the "authority" and "opinion" can maintain a high degree of consistency, there is no doubt that there must be the most efficient centralization, and the "opinion" of the leaders will definitely be enthusiastically responded by the hierarchical authoritative bureaucracy. In the Mao era, Mao had achieved good results through a series of means such as the "rectification movement", but Mao's "opinions" were often not very clever, so that even if he did not exhaust his authority, it also exhausted the "rectification movement". Movement" motivation. In 1992, Deng Xiaoping once again reached the political peak where "authority" and "opinion" were consistent. He retrieved and decisively consolidated his "authority" with "opinions" that were sufficient to echo the urgent demands of the public.

In the process of changing between "authority" and "opinion", the group is a clear system design in which "authority" overwhelms "opinion". The "organizational reform" added to the formal "organizational reform" is an authority hierarchy with a clear hierarchy that has to be established for the centralization of specific matters. It is precisely because the leaders' "opinions" are not widely supported within the ruling group that they have to tie a group of their "opinions" to a relatively fixed hierarchy of authority. "Promoting "opinions".

The explosion of groups means a shift in the balance between "opinion" and "authority". In the past, "opinion" was not as important as "authority", but now, "opinion" can influence the choice of parties more than "authority", and people's autonomy is improving. People's concept of rights is increasing, and people's will to free choice is strengthening. All of this has happened within the ruling group and has been verified by the explosion of "leading groups".

The explosion of "leadership groups" means a structural change within the ruling group that, albeit slowly, is irreversible. The rectification movement has been a magic weapon for strengthening the consistency of "authority" and "opinion" since the Yan'an era, and it is still in use today. The method of the rectification movement was to eliminate individual autonomy, and now "opinion" surpasses "authority" precisely because of the increase in individual autonomy within the system.

Therefore, the process of China's political reform must first compete with the individual autonomy of officials within the system. The leading group mechanism can suppress the personal autonomy of officials in specific matters, but unless a leading group is set up for each matter, no one can resist the individual autonomy of officials in matters that are not led by a leading group. The will of the leader will always come to nothing.

In the structural transformation of the entire Chinese society, from the responsibility of the individual to the power of the individual, intense transitional conflicts have occurred within the ruling group. Unlike any other kind of conflict, in this transitional conflict, there is no suspense about who wins and who loses.

March 21, 2017