党内民主差异性研究

【作者】 任俊伟；

【导师】 王长江；

【作者基本信息】 中共中央党校 ， 党的学说与党的建设， 2007， 博士

【副题名】共产党和社会民主党的比较

【摘要】 本文主要研究的是两类社会主义政党——共产党和社会民主党党内民主发生、发展的过程及其中的差异。在现代国家如此众多的政党中，有两类政党的关系比较特殊：他们曾经同母同源，有共同的指导思想、奋斗目标和相同的组织形式；他们也曾经彻底决裂、分道扬镳，一度形同陌路甚至视若仇敌，而且从目标手段到组织结构都迥然不同；今天，历史的恩怨早已散去，他们虽不能尽释前嫌、携手同行，却也能彼此尊重、和平相处。他们就是共产党和社会民主党——社会主义运动的两大分支、两大主导力量。需要说明的是，本文研究对象中的共产党主要是指原苏联、东欧地区的共产党、中国共产党等曾经在或正在社会主义国家里执政的共产党。因为列宁主义的建党原则在这些政党组织中表现的最充分、最典型。至于发达国家的共产党，本文未予讨论。本文研究对象中的社会民主党(社会党、工党等)主要指欧洲发达国家如德国、法国、英国、瑞典的社会民主党，因为这里是民主社会主义的发源地，而且这些国家的民主政治发展比较早、也比较成熟，政党的民主特性体现的最有代表性。至于曾在共产党执政的国家中存在的社会民主党，以及亚非拉地区新兴的政党，本文也未予讨论。这样处理的目的，是为了能够进行有效的比较研究，因为特色鲜明才易于比较的开展。党内民主的话题，既陈旧又新鲜。近几年国内研究党内民主的专著、文章渐渐多了起来，但对党内民主进行政党之间的比较并深入探讨其成因的并不多见。进行这样的比较研究有没有必要呢?答案是肯定的。因为“要研究政党活动的一般规律，就必须对包括中国共产党在内的所有政党的活动进行研究，特别是对世界上其他国家有影响的政党进行研究。只有通过这种深入的科学研究，才能从政党活动中总结、归纳出带有规律性的东西。这种结果，是局限于一个政党或一类政党的研究所不能达到的”。对于党内民主的研究，同样也是如此。因为党内民主问题，不仅中国共产党一个党要解决，其他的共产党也要解决；不仅共产党这一类党要解决，而且其他类型的政党也要解决。为什么要选取共产党和社会民主党在一起进行比较研究呢?一个重要的原因就是第一段所叙述的两者之间存在的独特的关系。这种关系在共产党和西方右翼资产阶级政党之间、社会民主党和右翼资产阶级政党之间都不具有。通过二者分分合合的历程，我们可以更清晰地探索到两类政党的党内民主发生、发展、变化的脉络。对这两类政党党内民主之间的差异进行比较分析，可以使我们更深刻地把握党内民主发展的规律，也可以为新时代中共党内民主的发展提供有益的借鉴。有鉴于此，本文选取了这样的研究内容。本文的主要内容包括以下六章：第一章，党内民主的一般理论分析。分析的理论前提是党内民主和民主之间具有的特殊性和普遍性的关系。本章首先对民主的理论与实践的发展进行了梳理总结，并讨论了使民主得以运行的三个基本原则，即多数原则、程序原则和少数原则。其次，说明党内民主与民主之间的关系，即党内民主是一种非国家制度的民主，是一般的民主原则在政党内部的延伸和移植。再次，说明科学的定义应该采取“属加种差”的方法，在此基础上阐明党内民主的本质是制度。最后，讨论了党内民主的功能和作用，即党内民主对于政党发展和国家民主发展的意义。第二章，主要论述社会民主党党内民主制度的渊源，即马克思恩格斯时代无产阶级政党的民主制原则。本章首先回顾了早期空想社会主义者建立的密谋革命组织，这种组织的特征就是权力高度集中。其次，论述了马克思恩格斯在帮助建立共产主义者同盟和第一国际时，开创了民主制原则。再次，论述了在德国无产阶级建立政党的过程中，民主制原则和集中制原则的斗争。第三章，主要论述共产党组织制度的渊源，即民主集中制原则。这一原则是列宁为新型无产阶级政党“量身打造”的，与第二国际内欧洲各党的组织原则截然不同。本章主要内容是：第二国际的分化与列宁新型无产阶级政党理论的诞生、民主集中制的实质及其遭到的批评、民主集中制通过第三国际确立为各国共产党的组织原则。第四章，主要论述共产党党内民主制度的发展和改革。第一部分，以苏共为例，论述了列宁对执政党建设的探索，列宁之后苏共党内民主恶化，并最终走上歧路。之所以选择苏共为例，因为苏共是民主集中制的发源地和推销者，其他共产党的组织制度都是其不同程度的翻版，苏共党内民主的状况具有代表性。第二部分，论述了共产党党内民主改革。一类以苏联、东欧共产党为代表，从一个极端走向另一个极端，最终亡党亡国：一类以越南共产党为代表，循序渐进，并使党内民主与社会民主相互促进，初步取得成效。第五章，主要论述社会民主党的转型与党内民主的改革。第一部分，论述了社民党先后建立的两个国际组织的组织制度，两者均不同于第三国际的严格集中统一。第二部分，论述了社民党二战后的转型，这是党内组织制度改革的背景和依据。为适应多党竞争的环境，其党内民主的改革方向是更加的民主化和公开化，尤其是在党内引进直接民主。第六章，主要论述了两类政党党内民主的差异及其原因。首先，对这种差异进行了概括，并说明我们应该以什么态度看待这种差异。其次，论述了政治生态环境是决定这种差异的关键性因素，具体分析了政治生态环境是如何影响党内民主制度的形成，并从动力的角度分析了政治生态环境对政党改革的影响。更多还原

【Abstract】 This dissertation primarily expounds the difference between two kinds of inner-party democracy in two socialist parties which are communist party and social democratic party.There are two kinds of parties whose relationship is very special in a lot of parties in modern countries because they ever originated from the same body, had the same guiding ideology, and the forms of organization. And they ever broke up completely, making their own ways like strangers even enemies; therefore, they began to have different aims, ways, and forms of organization. However, today they can respect each other and cooperate peacefully with the lifting of their history feud in spite that they can not give up the friction and make forward hand in hand.It is important to point out that the study objects of this dissertation are communist parties which were ever in power such as those in Soviet Union, East Europe, Chinese communist party and those who are in power in some socialist countries, because the principles for building parties of Leninism are employed completely and typically in those parties. This dissertation does not concern about the communist parties in developed countries. Social democratic parties in this dissertation such as socialist parties and labor parties are those in some developed countries in Europe such as German, French, England, Sweden, because socialist parties originated from those countries and democracy in those countries developed earlier and more mature and democratic features of those parties are the most typical forms. This dissertation does not mention the social democratic parties which ever existed in socialist countries and those which newly appeared in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, either. In order to carry out comparative study effectively, the author arranged the content like this, because characteristic and colorful things can be recognized easily.The topic of democracy within the party is old and new. In recent years there are more and more monographs and academic articles concerning it in mainland; however, there are few which can concentrate on the comparison of inner-party democracy between different parties and analyze the reasons. Is it necessary to apply the comparative study? The answer is affirmative. Because in order to study the regular action of parties, we must research into all the parties including CPC, especially those that can affect other countries; therefore, we can induce some regular characters, which can not be obtained if limited in only one party or one kind of parties, as is used to research democracy within the party. Because it is a problem that must be solved not only by CPC but also by other communist parties, not only communist parties, but also other kind of parties.Why do I choose the comparison between communist parties and socialist parties? One of the important reasons is that they have special relationships as mentioned in the first paragraph, but there exists no this between communist parties and western right parties, socialist parties and right parties. We can explore the skeletons of the democracy within those parties in the course of their generation, development and change clearly by analyzing the course in which they have been cooperating and separating. We can master the development law of the inner-party democracy deeply and get some references for CPC in the new era by comparing the difference between these two kinds of parties.This dissertation principally has six chapters:Chapter One analyzes the theory of democracy within the party generally. The premise for the analysis is that there exists a special and universal relationship between democracy and the democracy within the party. In this chapter, the author will first analyze and induce the theories and practices of democracy and then discuss three basic principles (majority, program and minority) in which democracy can be carried out. Then the author explains the relationship between the inner-party democracy and democracy, which means that democracy within the party does not belong to the system of a country but the extention and transplantation of the general principle of a party. Thirdly, the author draws a conclusion that the essence of democracy within the party is a system by the way in which scientific definition can be made by pulsing genus to the difference of category. At last, this part discusses the basic function of democracy within the party, which is very important for the development of a party and the development of democracy of a state-nation.Chapter two mainly explains the origins of democracy within social democratic parties, which come from the principles of democracy of communist parties in Marx-Engle’s era. This chapter first reflects some conspired organizations founded by early Utopian socialists whose characters are centralism, and then discusses some principles of democracy which were created when the Communist Confederation and First International were established with the help of Marx and Engles, and at last treats the struggles between the principles of democracy and centralism during the course in which German communist party was built.Chapter three chiefly expounds the source of organizing system of communist parties, called democratic centralism, which is founded for new communist party by Lenin and obviously different from the principles of the parties of Second International in Europe, whose contents are the disintegration of Second International and the birth of Lenin’s theory for party, the essence and criticism of democratic centralism, and the course in which democratic centralism was established as the principle of organization for all the communist parties by Comintern.Chapter four chiefly discusses the development and reform of democracy within communist parties. Part one, taking communist party of USSR as an example, discusses Lenin’s contribution to the party in power, the deterioration of democracy within communist party of USSR and the wrong road it went down. The reason for which the author chooses communist party of URRS is because it is the cradle and promoter for democratic centralism, meanwhile other communist parties’ system of organization are copies to a certain degree and the situation of democracy within communist party of USSR is typical of all. Part two explains the reforms of democracy within communist parties, one kind of which went to extremes so as to bring about the death of those parties and countries such as the communist parties of USSR and East Europe, and the other kind of which have got some fruitful results by gradual reform and reciprocal promotion in democracy within the party and society.Chapter five primarily discussed the transformation of social democratic party and the reform of democracy within the party. Part one explains the systems of organization which were founded by social democratic parties one by one which were different from Comintern’s centralism. Part two discusses the transformation of social democratic parties after World War Two, which is the background and foundation of the reform for the system of organization of the party. In order to adapt to the competitive organism among parties, the direction in reform of Social Democratic Parties should be more democratic and public, especially in direct democracy.Chapter six basically discusses the reason for the differences between democracies within two parties. At first, the author sums up the differences and the points out that what attitudes we should have towards the differences. Then the discourse expounds that social ecological environment is the key factor which determines the differences and how it affects the engendering of democracy within the party and reforms of political parties in view of dynamics.更多还原